Everyone has something that bugs them. I hate serial photographers. You know who I am talking about. Serial photographers are at every gathering or function. They start snapping away as soon as they enter the room. They don't care if you are chewing, in the middle of saying something or simply just having a bad hair day. They snap away.
It has gotten far worse with the advent of camera phones. Before camera phones you could hide if you saw them coming; now there is no place to go. They are every where.
I don't mind being photographed if I have some control over it. I am one of those people who do not photograph well. I never have. If I am photographed by a professional, I will generally find a few that I like. I have no such luck with anyone else. Now some people may disagree with that, but it's my thing and should be respected. Right? I find that isn't the case. There are many people who take perverse pleasure in doing just that.
I belonged to a church choir a few years back. I had problems with this issue right off the bat. We were informed one evening that a few photographs were needed for a ministry event that was coming up. We had no advanced warning. I had come to practice straight from work. It was a hot day. I was sweaty. My clothes were wrinkled and my eyeliner had given me a great case of raccoon eyes. I stated that I didn't want my picture taken....and the bullying began. Eventually, I caved and held a hymnal up in front of my face. What I didn't know is that the person taking the photographs (who was another member of the choir) took one without my knowledge. Fortunately, it didn't make the cut. I was pretty angry. Why did this person disrespect me so? Is another persons feelings invalid if you disagree with them or is this a form of passive aggression?
Another choir member was a true serial photographer. She would never put her damn camera away. My only solace was that one day she took some unflattering photos of the original perpetrator. She, not only posted them on Facebook, she tagged them! The person was furious. I laughed myself silly. It was ample affirmation that there is a god!
So now you know mine, what is your pet peeve?
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Why?
Why did the Boston Marathon bombers feel it necessary to destroy so many lives?
The events of the past week have left us breathless. We have run the gamut of emotions. We are rung out, emotionally spent and are left with asking ourselves, why?
I am not a psychologist, just an observer. There are hundreds of articles describing what motivates a terrorist. Although reports are conflicting, looking at these two men, it is easy (in hindsight) to see the signs. These two were bounced around quite a bit. The eldest was a loner, antisocial. He didn't fit in. It made him a prime target for recruiters to "the cause." In all likelihood, he, in turn, recruited his younger brother. The younger man didn't quite fit the profile. He attended parties. He drank alcohol. He was going to medical school. It appeared he was very social and had a bright future ahead of him. His friends and family are having a difficult believing that he would do something so evil.
So why did he? FBI profilers, psychologists, and sociologists can give you a multitude of reasons, but I think it boils down to a need to belong. It is the reason, young men join gangs. These people feel powerless. They are angry. They want to be heard. They want to be acknowledged.
Occasionally, we feel the same way, but we channel these needs into appropriate outlets. However, we aren't being recruited by charismatic religious fanatics (or gang members). The Khmer Rouge used children and adolescents in their campaign of terror. We have seen the same behavior in Africa, as well. Young men are recruited or forced to be killers. These kids are emotionally susceptible to manipulation.
Am I making excuses for them, NO! I am sickened by the bombings. My daughter is a runner. It could have been my son-in-law and my grandchild on the sidelines cheering her on. As a parent and a grandparent, every child is my child and my children are growing up in a world where they are not safe. We are asking ourselves, why? This is my feeble attempt in giving an answer.
The events of the past week have left us breathless. We have run the gamut of emotions. We are rung out, emotionally spent and are left with asking ourselves, why?
I am not a psychologist, just an observer. There are hundreds of articles describing what motivates a terrorist. Although reports are conflicting, looking at these two men, it is easy (in hindsight) to see the signs. These two were bounced around quite a bit. The eldest was a loner, antisocial. He didn't fit in. It made him a prime target for recruiters to "the cause." In all likelihood, he, in turn, recruited his younger brother. The younger man didn't quite fit the profile. He attended parties. He drank alcohol. He was going to medical school. It appeared he was very social and had a bright future ahead of him. His friends and family are having a difficult believing that he would do something so evil.
So why did he? FBI profilers, psychologists, and sociologists can give you a multitude of reasons, but I think it boils down to a need to belong. It is the reason, young men join gangs. These people feel powerless. They are angry. They want to be heard. They want to be acknowledged.
Occasionally, we feel the same way, but we channel these needs into appropriate outlets. However, we aren't being recruited by charismatic religious fanatics (or gang members). The Khmer Rouge used children and adolescents in their campaign of terror. We have seen the same behavior in Africa, as well. Young men are recruited or forced to be killers. These kids are emotionally susceptible to manipulation.
Am I making excuses for them, NO! I am sickened by the bombings. My daughter is a runner. It could have been my son-in-law and my grandchild on the sidelines cheering her on. As a parent and a grandparent, every child is my child and my children are growing up in a world where they are not safe. We are asking ourselves, why? This is my feeble attempt in giving an answer.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Are you kidding me?
My response to the background check amendment vote.
I waited a few days before saying anything. I had to cool down. The Manchin-Toomey amendment was widely supported by over ninety percent of this country's citizens and the U. S. Senate shot it down. Why? The senators who voted against it were afraid that they would not be reelected. They were afraid of the power of the NRA. Two women shouted "Shame on you" after the proposal was defeated. I couldn't have said it better.
I consider myself a moderate. I vote issues, not parties. I agree with President Obama when he said, "a pretty shameful day for Washington." These people decided that their jobs more important than the life of one child.
No one claimed that this bill would solve all the problems this country has with gun violence, but it was a start. It would have been slightly inconvenient, similar to registering your car, but if it saves the life of one child, it is worth it..
The following link is the NRA's response: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/letter-from-nra-institute-for-legislative-action-executive-director-chris-cox-to-the-united-states-senate-on-background-checks.aspx
The NRA states: "This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
Yes! This is the idea! It is designed to keep the private transfer of weapons to criminals and the mentally ill. It means that you would need to fill out paperwork if you buy a gun at a gun show, from a friend or on the Internet. I don't understand what the NRA's issue is. If you are a law abiding citizen, what are you afraid of? That you'll get a hand cramp? That you won't get immediate gratification?
This has been covered a great deal by the press so I will say no more. I do hope that anyone who disagrees with the outcome of this vote, write their senators and inform them that they are unhappy and as a result, will not be voting for them when they are up for reelection. A list that provides the names of the senators and how they voted can be found online (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713). Use the power of the pen and your vote to tell these people how you feel. How they were able to look into the faces of the Newton families is beyond me.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: If you read the amendment you will find that family and friend transfers are exempted from the requirement of criminal background checks. It did not extend the exemption to Internet and gun show sales.
I waited a few days before saying anything. I had to cool down. The Manchin-Toomey amendment was widely supported by over ninety percent of this country's citizens and the U. S. Senate shot it down. Why? The senators who voted against it were afraid that they would not be reelected. They were afraid of the power of the NRA. Two women shouted "Shame on you" after the proposal was defeated. I couldn't have said it better.
I consider myself a moderate. I vote issues, not parties. I agree with President Obama when he said, "a pretty shameful day for Washington." These people decided that their jobs more important than the life of one child.
No one claimed that this bill would solve all the problems this country has with gun violence, but it was a start. It would have been slightly inconvenient, similar to registering your car, but if it saves the life of one child, it is worth it..
The following link is the NRA's response: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/letter-from-nra-institute-for-legislative-action-executive-director-chris-cox-to-the-united-states-senate-on-background-checks.aspx
The NRA states: "This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
Yes! This is the idea! It is designed to keep the private transfer of weapons to criminals and the mentally ill. It means that you would need to fill out paperwork if you buy a gun at a gun show, from a friend or on the Internet. I don't understand what the NRA's issue is. If you are a law abiding citizen, what are you afraid of? That you'll get a hand cramp? That you won't get immediate gratification?
This has been covered a great deal by the press so I will say no more. I do hope that anyone who disagrees with the outcome of this vote, write their senators and inform them that they are unhappy and as a result, will not be voting for them when they are up for reelection. A list that provides the names of the senators and how they voted can be found online (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713). Use the power of the pen and your vote to tell these people how you feel. How they were able to look into the faces of the Newton families is beyond me.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Postscript: If you read the amendment you will find that family and friend transfers are exempted from the requirement of criminal background checks. It did not extend the exemption to Internet and gun show sales.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Are we wallowing? Follow up
Yesterday's blog garnered attention and I received a great deal of feedback. I am following up in the hope of stimulating further discussion.
I think there is an additional problem in the way the media covers tragedies, disasters, and crises. After the initial barrage, it turns to something new and people welcome it, because they are burned out and desensitized by the coverage. Do you remember the huge earthquake in San Francisco several years ago? It was a catastrophe, but after the first week or two, you heard very little about it. I often wondered how recovery was going, how the people who were affected were doing, but there was no follow up. The same is happening here in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. I am listening to hammering. One of my neighbors is finally getting their roof replaced. The storm happened six months ago. There are still plenty of people in my neighborhood who are waiting for roofers. There are so many who are far worse off than us, but the coverage has backed off. People are suffering here, but the media doesn't see the need to follow up. It has moved on.
The media needs to learn when to back off and when to follow up. It needs to learn to pace itself, to present new information as it comes available and to balance its coverage. Currently, Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" still holds true.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Craig Ferguson's reaction:
I think there is an additional problem in the way the media covers tragedies, disasters, and crises. After the initial barrage, it turns to something new and people welcome it, because they are burned out and desensitized by the coverage. Do you remember the huge earthquake in San Francisco several years ago? It was a catastrophe, but after the first week or two, you heard very little about it. I often wondered how recovery was going, how the people who were affected were doing, but there was no follow up. The same is happening here in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. I am listening to hammering. One of my neighbors is finally getting their roof replaced. The storm happened six months ago. There are still plenty of people in my neighborhood who are waiting for roofers. There are so many who are far worse off than us, but the coverage has backed off. People are suffering here, but the media doesn't see the need to follow up. It has moved on.
The media needs to learn when to back off and when to follow up. It needs to learn to pace itself, to present new information as it comes available and to balance its coverage. Currently, Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" still holds true.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Craig Ferguson's reaction:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Are we wallowing in our grief?
"But the vast majority
stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a
virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers
and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or
creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil.
We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago.
"So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just
garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye
and think, 'The good outnumber you, and we always will.' "
Well said, Pat.
I have been watching the news coverage since yesterday afternoon. It didn't take long for me to feel uncomfortable. Yes, I wanted as much information the networks could give me, but after seeing the same footage, the same information presented so many times I lost count, I felt something was very wrong.
I have accused the media of exploiting news for ratings before. Newspapers, networks, cable, online news organizations, etc. are all competing for sound bytes. You notice it the most on slow news days. The most innocent of incidents suddenly is being shown on every major news outlet. It is most horrific when a tragedy is involved.
By the time the late night news was over, most of the country and the world had been informed as to what happened. In the hurry to feed the demand for information, the media were not always correct. The two sources rule was thrown out years ago in the quest for ratings. That always bothers me (prepare for another rant on this subject later.) What bothered me more was the constant repetition. Was it necessary to bludgeon us with it? Are we part of the problem?
After a point, I couldn't bear to watch anymore. I picked up a book and consulted online sources later for updates. I am not being insensitive. I am as shell shocked as anyone by the tragedy. I want the bastards who did this caught and strung up. However, is our watching the footage for hours on end, helping anyone? Are we wallowing in our grief?
I admit that I am no kid. I remember when networks would break into television programming only in major crises. They would give you the information they had and say, "more at eleven." In cases like the Boston Marathon, they would stay on longer, but they wouldn't repeat the same information. They would get back to you when new information was available.
So why is this happening? We need to be informed. We need to know if this country is under attack, but are we getting off on it? We must grieve. We must determine who did this, but do we need to be glued to our televisions, revisiting every word, every sound and every graphic image?
In cases like this, I see the media as partially to blame. They repeat footage, because they don't have anything new to present and they are unable to meet the demand. If they don't meet the demand, viewers switch channels or go to other outlets. (See Don Henley's lyrics for "Dirty Laundry," http://www.elyrics.net/read/d/don-henley-lyrics/dirty-laundry-lyrics.html )
I believe it is our fault, as well. After our initial reaction, we need to take a breath and be patient. New information will be presented as it becomes available. It okay to be sad. It is okay to grieve, but don't allow it to overtake your life. It is not only unhealthy, but you are giving the bastards what they want.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
What do you think?
Monday, April 15, 2013
Justin Bieber's Anne Frank Gaffe
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart.”
― Anne Frank
― Anne Frank
"Truly inspiring to be able to come here. Anne was a great girl. Hopefully she would have been a belieber."
― Justin Bieber
My first reaction was, "Are you kidding me?" When I stopped knee jerking, I looked at it differently.
I am glad that Justin took the opportunity to visit the Anne Frank house. He travels a great deal and he could learn so much by taking a few minutes to explore wherever he is. He spent an hour learning about a sweet intelligent young woman who died before her time. Anne Frank accomplished a great deal in a short time. Any one who has read her diary is touched by it. She was loving and philosophical despite the desperate circumstances she found herself in. Her diary put a face to the millions who were murdered in the Holocaust.
Justin signed the museum's guest book and people reacted. I've been reading many of the online comments. The majority thought he was disrespectful. It appeared that he purposely turned attention away from Anne and back towards him. I don't believe that was his intent. The third sentence was silly, but I think Justin got it. He saw Anne for what she was, a young girl, who would have been like so many other young girls if she had been allowed to live a normal life.
So for the first time, I am cutting Justin some slack. He is young and inexperienced. In fact, I see him emotionally younger than many of his peers. Hopefully, the backlash he received will be a learning curve and he will mature and move on.
_______________________________________________________________________________
*On a positive note, a lot of people are using their browsers to learn more about Anne Frank. That isn't a bad thing.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Are we enabling celebrities?
Are we enabling celebrities?
Jane Miller, April 12, 2013
Lindsay Lohan and Justin Bieber have been in the news lately. The reporting has been negative for good reason. They are both adults, but their behavior has hardly been that of one.
Lindsay's exploits have been legendary. She has been in and out of court, in and out of rehab, and yet, she is still in the public eye. She keeps getting attention. Negative attention is still attention and in the case of misbehaving celebrities feeds their money machine.
Julie Chen stated recently that they would no longer be discussing Lindsay on "The Talk." I cheered. She gets it. When small children misbehave, they are often doing it to get attention. In a celebrity's case, it holds true as well. When you reward the child or celebrity with negative attention, you are giving then what they want.
Lindsay would never have survived in old Hollywood. Public opinion would have killed her career. The studios might have covered for her, but eventually, it would have gotten out and her life in the celebrity fast lane would have been over. Unfortunately, the public now appears to be insatiable when it comes to needing to know every aspect of a celebrity's life. This feeds the gossip rags, the paparazzi, newspapers, television etc. It is big business. So even though Lindsay is in the middle of a career melt down, she is still making money for a whole lot of people. It is a never ending money-go-round.
So what is the solution? I believe it has to come from us. Lindsay won't hold herself accountable until we do. The British have an excellent expression. When they ignore someone they say they are sending them "to Coventry." I think that is what we need to do. We need to stop enabling and start ignoring.
Jane Miller, April 12, 2013
Lindsay Lohan and Justin Bieber have been in the news lately. The reporting has been negative for good reason. They are both adults, but their behavior has hardly been that of one.
Lindsay's exploits have been legendary. She has been in and out of court, in and out of rehab, and yet, she is still in the public eye. She keeps getting attention. Negative attention is still attention and in the case of misbehaving celebrities feeds their money machine.
Julie Chen stated recently that they would no longer be discussing Lindsay on "The Talk." I cheered. She gets it. When small children misbehave, they are often doing it to get attention. In a celebrity's case, it holds true as well. When you reward the child or celebrity with negative attention, you are giving then what they want.
Lindsay would never have survived in old Hollywood. Public opinion would have killed her career. The studios might have covered for her, but eventually, it would have gotten out and her life in the celebrity fast lane would have been over. Unfortunately, the public now appears to be insatiable when it comes to needing to know every aspect of a celebrity's life. This feeds the gossip rags, the paparazzi, newspapers, television etc. It is big business. So even though Lindsay is in the middle of a career melt down, she is still making money for a whole lot of people. It is a never ending money-go-round.
So what is the solution? I believe it has to come from us. Lindsay won't hold herself accountable until we do. The British have an excellent expression. When they ignore someone they say they are sending them "to Coventry." I think that is what we need to do. We need to stop enabling and start ignoring.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
When is a joke no longer funny?
When is a joke no longer funny?
An old axiom states that "a joke repeated is no longer funny." Is this the case? Comedy inspires repetition. If a joke works once, it should work again, right? There is a big difference between repeating a character and repeating a joke. Early SNL had the right idea. They reused Belushi's samurai, but they put him in different situations so that the joke was developed and expanded. It wasn't the same joke each time, but a nod and a wink to the original premise.
I can't say the same for all sketches or comedy bits currently on television. I love Jay Leno, Ellen Degeneres and SNL, but are all guilty of killing a joke using it too often..Jay's "Jaywalking" is an example. Yes, there are stupid people out there, Jay; we get it. The same holds true when he brings in some of the same people into the studio for a quiz show. The first time, it was funny. The second, not so much.
Ellen loves to frighten her guests and employees by jumping out at them from behind doors, walls, etc. The first time this happened, it was funny, but she has been doing this for several years now. Quite frankly, now it comes across as mean. I was laid off in 2009 and I need a job, but I don't know if I would want to work for her. You would be constantly looking over your shoulder (and her guests must feel the same way.) The viewer sees the giant spider sneaking up behind an unsuspecting guests and groans.
A few years ago, Ellen created a Candid Camera type bit using Dennis Quaid. She would send him out with a ear piece and tell him to say outlandish things to passersby. Most of his victims took it with good grace, but I always cringed. This type of humor is similar to April Fool's pranks. They are funny for the viewer and for the pranksters, but not for the person being pranked. So again, initially it was funny, but after the second or third time, it grates. You start sympathizing with the poor guy who hasn't clue why a celebrity is acting like a loon.
SNL used to have a handle on this. As with the samurai, they knew you had to change the joke up to keep it fresh and funny, but they too have experienced overkill. Remember "The Whiners?" The skit was hilarious the first time, but after that you wanted to slit your wrists. Will Ferrell and Cheri Oteri's cheerleaders wore thin due to over use. What initially was funny and creative became boring and repetitious.
How do you feel? Am I right? When is a joke no longer funny?
An old axiom states that "a joke repeated is no longer funny." Is this the case? Comedy inspires repetition. If a joke works once, it should work again, right? There is a big difference between repeating a character and repeating a joke. Early SNL had the right idea. They reused Belushi's samurai, but they put him in different situations so that the joke was developed and expanded. It wasn't the same joke each time, but a nod and a wink to the original premise.
I can't say the same for all sketches or comedy bits currently on television. I love Jay Leno, Ellen Degeneres and SNL, but are all guilty of killing a joke using it too often..Jay's "Jaywalking" is an example. Yes, there are stupid people out there, Jay; we get it. The same holds true when he brings in some of the same people into the studio for a quiz show. The first time, it was funny. The second, not so much.
Ellen loves to frighten her guests and employees by jumping out at them from behind doors, walls, etc. The first time this happened, it was funny, but she has been doing this for several years now. Quite frankly, now it comes across as mean. I was laid off in 2009 and I need a job, but I don't know if I would want to work for her. You would be constantly looking over your shoulder (and her guests must feel the same way.) The viewer sees the giant spider sneaking up behind an unsuspecting guests and groans.
A few years ago, Ellen created a Candid Camera type bit using Dennis Quaid. She would send him out with a ear piece and tell him to say outlandish things to passersby. Most of his victims took it with good grace, but I always cringed. This type of humor is similar to April Fool's pranks. They are funny for the viewer and for the pranksters, but not for the person being pranked. So again, initially it was funny, but after the second or third time, it grates. You start sympathizing with the poor guy who hasn't clue why a celebrity is acting like a loon.
SNL used to have a handle on this. As with the samurai, they knew you had to change the joke up to keep it fresh and funny, but they too have experienced overkill. Remember "The Whiners?" The skit was hilarious the first time, but after that you wanted to slit your wrists. Will Ferrell and Cheri Oteri's cheerleaders wore thin due to over use. What initially was funny and creative became boring and repetitious.
How do you feel? Am I right? When is a joke no longer funny?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)