Okay, we really are living in a Salvador Dalí movie: following in the footsteps of of Washington, New York & probably other states, the FDA & FTC are moving to ban caffeinated alco-pops.
Seems alcoholic energy drinks (an oxymoron that should have been a clue from the start) are really, really bad for you (especially if you drink six of them at a frat party) & so supermarket & convenience store shelves should be cleared of them ASAP. (On Tuesday the manufacturer of these things announced it would take the caffeine out of their formula. That makes it so much better.)
Now, coming from the agencies that took bleeding decades to slap a “smoking may be hazardous to your health” sticker on packs of cigarettes & allowed GlaxoSmithKline to manufacture & sell (at top dollar) defective drugs for years (despite constant warnings by a whistle-blower) before finally tickling a $750M fine out of them (a sum which can be vacuumed out of the sofa cushions in the executive lounge), this is just kurazy.
All I can think is that the alco-pop industry doesn’t have the juice that big pharma & big tobacco does so it was easy for the FDA to be seen to protect the public.
It’s still Chien Andalou.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Kings & queens
Well, Britain’s just hogging all the news this week; latest is the announcement that Prince William, second in line to the throne, has got engaged to longtime girlfriend Kate Middleton. The ceremony will take place in an as yet unidentified London location (what besides Westminster Abbey or St. Paul’s would hold even the bridal party?), sometime next spring. Or maybe summer.
A couple of thoughts on this:
Let the souvenir selling begin—a royal wedding might just haul the UK’s butt out of recession faster than anything the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition could come up with by way of benefits-cutting or tax-raising.
Whatever nom-de-rule Wills chooses (they haven’t had much luck with a King William since the Conqueror, & he was a Frog), she will be the first Queen consort named Catherine since Henry VIII. Which may also not bode well.
Three of his wives were Catherine (or Katherine); two did not enjoy what you would call happy marriages. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon because over the course of nearly 25 years she bore him no viable sons. This resulted in England irrevocably leaving the Roman Catholic fold, the establishment of the Church of England, the destruction of Church assets, the enrichment of the Tudors & five centuries of Anglican theology trying to straddle the fence between high & low church.
Most recently we saw the defection of five CoE bishops to the Roman Church over their discomfort with modernizing trends, including the ordination of women priests & consecration of female bishops. Which I don’t get because if they’re jake with the Queen being the Supreme Head of the Church, what’s the beef with women clergy?
Catherine spent her final few years after the divorce (granted not by the Pope, but by Henry himself—after he declared himself head of the church) in spitefully penurious retirement (King Hal didn’t like reminders of failures), & she wasn’t allowed to see her daughter, who eventually ascended the throne as Mary I. Upon receiving word of her death, Henry is reported to have celebrated.
The second of Henry’s Kates was Catherine Howard. About 30 years his junior, she was unprepared for the reality of an aging, obese sexual partner with a permanent festering ulcer on his leg. This not only impeded his dynastic designs, when she sought an extra-marital affair it made her vulnerable to blackmail from courtiers. Within two years of the wedding she was beheaded on charges of adultery. Girls just wanna have fun; but even in the days before TMZ & Twitter these things have a way of becoming known, & the Tudors were never known for their sense of humor.
Henry’s final Catherine, Parr, managed to outlive him; but as he was her third husband, she’d probably acquired enough negotiating skills to be able to manage him for their four years of marriage. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily a happy union for her: she’d actually been in love with Sir Thomas Seymour (brother to Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour), but the King’s proposal trumped the baronet’s.
Following Henry’s death in 1547, Catherine was able to marry Seymour, but he was deeply involved in schemes to seize power, which included making a play for Princess Elizabeth, third in line to the throne, who was under Catherine’s care.
Nothing was simple with the Tudors.
Catherine died shortly after giving birth to her first child, at age 35. Her widower was beheaded for treason a year later.
Now, of course, historical dynastic marriages aren’t predictive; they’re not even indicative. But it’s interesting to speculate about a 21st Century Queen Catherine.
Don't get me started on the Williams, though.
A couple of thoughts on this:
Let the souvenir selling begin—a royal wedding might just haul the UK’s butt out of recession faster than anything the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition could come up with by way of benefits-cutting or tax-raising.
Whatever nom-de-rule Wills chooses (they haven’t had much luck with a King William since the Conqueror, & he was a Frog), she will be the first Queen consort named Catherine since Henry VIII. Which may also not bode well.
Three of his wives were Catherine (or Katherine); two did not enjoy what you would call happy marriages. Henry divorced Catherine of Aragon because over the course of nearly 25 years she bore him no viable sons. This resulted in England irrevocably leaving the Roman Catholic fold, the establishment of the Church of England, the destruction of Church assets, the enrichment of the Tudors & five centuries of Anglican theology trying to straddle the fence between high & low church.
Most recently we saw the defection of five CoE bishops to the Roman Church over their discomfort with modernizing trends, including the ordination of women priests & consecration of female bishops. Which I don’t get because if they’re jake with the Queen being the Supreme Head of the Church, what’s the beef with women clergy?
Catherine spent her final few years after the divorce (granted not by the Pope, but by Henry himself—after he declared himself head of the church) in spitefully penurious retirement (King Hal didn’t like reminders of failures), & she wasn’t allowed to see her daughter, who eventually ascended the throne as Mary I. Upon receiving word of her death, Henry is reported to have celebrated.
The second of Henry’s Kates was Catherine Howard. About 30 years his junior, she was unprepared for the reality of an aging, obese sexual partner with a permanent festering ulcer on his leg. This not only impeded his dynastic designs, when she sought an extra-marital affair it made her vulnerable to blackmail from courtiers. Within two years of the wedding she was beheaded on charges of adultery. Girls just wanna have fun; but even in the days before TMZ & Twitter these things have a way of becoming known, & the Tudors were never known for their sense of humor.
Henry’s final Catherine, Parr, managed to outlive him; but as he was her third husband, she’d probably acquired enough negotiating skills to be able to manage him for their four years of marriage. This doesn’t mean it was necessarily a happy union for her: she’d actually been in love with Sir Thomas Seymour (brother to Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour), but the King’s proposal trumped the baronet’s.
Following Henry’s death in 1547, Catherine was able to marry Seymour, but he was deeply involved in schemes to seize power, which included making a play for Princess Elizabeth, third in line to the throne, who was under Catherine’s care.
Nothing was simple with the Tudors.
Catherine died shortly after giving birth to her first child, at age 35. Her widower was beheaded for treason a year later.
Now, of course, historical dynastic marriages aren’t predictive; they’re not even indicative. But it’s interesting to speculate about a 21st Century Queen Catherine.
Don't get me started on the Williams, though.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Retail therapy
This just in via my BFF Leilah in Palm Springs: this Random Acts of Culture crowd brought the “Hallelujah” chorus to one of the US’s secular temples, Macy’s in Philadelphia. The Knight Foundation (may their endowment never depend on Wall Street investments) has sponsored various outbreaks of the classics around the country.
It clearly knocked the socks off the shoppers & proves that Handel is not just for the holidays.
I don’t care if you’re at work, crank your volume up to the max & let the experience envelope you.
Then hit replay.
& then email to your friends.
It clearly knocked the socks off the shoppers & proves that Handel is not just for the holidays.
I don’t care if you’re at work, crank your volume up to the max & let the experience envelope you.
Then hit replay.
& then email to your friends.
Adding up
A few random examples of how the art of written communication is going straight to hell in a hand cart.
First--an advert on the back of a Safeway receipt:
From the same tape an ad for a local spa:
But it doesn't stop there. Here's an ad from the Sunday San Francisco Chronicle's food & wine section:
This illustrates one of my personal bugaboos: using the possessive (you know, the thing with the apostrophe) for the plural.
But even if the restaurant's marketer or ad agency couldn't tell the difference, doesn't the Chronicle have editors?
Monday, November 15, 2010
Power to the phalanges
Interesting piece from the Telegraph about a UK Twitter protest against the conviction of a guy for Tweeting a threat to/about Sheffield’s airport.
Seems that Paul Chambers, 27, was annoyed at the thought he was going to miss his flight, but evidently had the time and the device on his hands to threaten to blow up Robin Hood Airport (I’m not making that up) in a week if it didn’t get its [act] together.
A British judge found the content of the Tweet to be “menacing” (which is a crime) & fined him a total of £3000, which is probably the only kind of thing that will get a 27-year-old male Tweeter’s attention.
Although you might not think this was your basic blokish bloviating, and that authorities all along the line have lost their senses of humor and perspective, that’s not the story.
The story is that the Twittersphere has rallied behind Chambers, with thousands retweeting his original post and adding “#IamSpartacus”. (Although I’m sure there are multiple variants on the spelling.) This in reference to the 1960 Stanley Kubrick film where the rebellious gladiators refused to let their leader be singled out for punishment.
I’m not sure what to make of it—except that such an act of viral solidarity (is that an oxymoron?) is not at all the same thing as standing with a lighted candle under posters of the desaparacidos, marching on Selma or even texting three quid to a fund to help pay Chambers’ fine. Tweeting “I am Spartacus” is a no-cost no-brain act of trendiness, rather than a real protest, viral or otherwise.
Seems that Paul Chambers, 27, was annoyed at the thought he was going to miss his flight, but evidently had the time and the device on his hands to threaten to blow up Robin Hood Airport (I’m not making that up) in a week if it didn’t get its [act] together.
A British judge found the content of the Tweet to be “menacing” (which is a crime) & fined him a total of £3000, which is probably the only kind of thing that will get a 27-year-old male Tweeter’s attention.
Although you might not think this was your basic blokish bloviating, and that authorities all along the line have lost their senses of humor and perspective, that’s not the story.
The story is that the Twittersphere has rallied behind Chambers, with thousands retweeting his original post and adding “#IamSpartacus”. (Although I’m sure there are multiple variants on the spelling.) This in reference to the 1960 Stanley Kubrick film where the rebellious gladiators refused to let their leader be singled out for punishment.
I’m not sure what to make of it—except that such an act of viral solidarity (is that an oxymoron?) is not at all the same thing as standing with a lighted candle under posters of the desaparacidos, marching on Selma or even texting three quid to a fund to help pay Chambers’ fine. Tweeting “I am Spartacus” is a no-cost no-brain act of trendiness, rather than a real protest, viral or otherwise.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
It's not another country
Here’s irony for you: on the same day that the BBC reports that France’s state rail company finally admitted and apologized for its role in deporting that country’s Jews to Nazi extermination camps, the NY Times runs a story on a US government report admitting that for years this government did indeed harbor and use for geopolitical purposes whole rafts of Nazis and Nazi collaborators.
SNCF, which operates France’s railway system, spent the last five and a half decades insisting that it and its employees weren’t responsible for participating in the deportations; it was all German orders, and rail workers had no choice in the matter.
France as a nation has had an uneasy time with this issue of collaboration—right from the Liberation, when the preponderance of “collabos” punished were women who had consorted with Germans (and not, say, public officials who paved the way for governmental cooperation, or businessmen who made big profits off the invaders), there’s been this national myth that, really, no one helped the occupiers, everyone was a resistant and all the evil-doing was auf Deutsch. The biggest collaborator of all, Philippe Pétain, was in fact tried for the crime, but the French couldn’t bear to give him the death penalty he richly deserved—they did reluctantly sentence him to death, but commuted it to imprisonment.
(They didn’t have the same problem with his deputy, Pierre Laval; they couldn’t wait to send him to the firing squad. Laval was the perfect target. His execution gave the French the satisfaction of having “dealt with” a big-wig collaborator and enabled them to pretty much dust their hands of the whole issue.)
The reality is murkier, as you’d expect. There was plenty of go-along-to-get-along cooperation with the Germans; it was a long four years of occupation. Notable among the goers-along were businesses large and small. SNCF would be one of them.
There were resistants, even within SNCF; which means that if some employees could sabotage operations then there were choices to be made. But, as with the country as a whole, it’s easier to think back on those days as perhaps their “greatest generation”, and pretend that the French were either heroes or victims.
But the Frogs are nothing if not pragmatic: the “profound sorrow and regret” expressed this week are directly related to bids that SNCF wants to put in to build high-speed rail networks in Florida and California. It seems both states are making noises about not doing business with any organization that refuses to acknowledge its involvement in the Holocaust.
C’est l’argent qui parle; et la fraternité qui marche.
However, the US has been engaged in its own cover-up about collaborating in giving refuge to Nazis who should have been dealt with as war criminals. The report the Times acquired this week documents five and a half decades of activities by some federal agencies (largely intelligence related) to protect these Nazis from other agencies (like Justice) that were trying to identify and prosecute war criminals. (And, BTW—this is our tax dollars at work: one agency working full bore against another.)
Our hands are not only not clean in this matter, the agencies are still trying like hell to obfuscate their involvement. If not for a lawsuit filed four years ago, we still wouldn’t have any official recognition. They all want to pretend that their actions were above board; or else that it was so long ago it really doesn’t matter anymore.
But here’s a clue: if you spend all this governmental capital on covering something up, it’s generally something that you wouldn’t want to brag to your grandchildren about.
I understand that, having made a deal with the Georgian devil to destroy the Austrian one, the Anglo-American governments got to 1945 and realized that Stalin was going to be more troublesome than expected, and they made more deals with a whole flock of Nazi devils to help in the Cold War. We don’t have the luxury of black and white clarity; it’s all half-tones.
But what bothers me is that going on for 60 years after the fact we’re still acting like we’ve taken the high road when obviously we’ve been grubbing around in the ditches.
Perhaps what our government needs is a financial incentive such as enticed SNCF into apologizing. If brotherhood won’t do it, maybe the money will.
SNCF, which operates France’s railway system, spent the last five and a half decades insisting that it and its employees weren’t responsible for participating in the deportations; it was all German orders, and rail workers had no choice in the matter.
France as a nation has had an uneasy time with this issue of collaboration—right from the Liberation, when the preponderance of “collabos” punished were women who had consorted with Germans (and not, say, public officials who paved the way for governmental cooperation, or businessmen who made big profits off the invaders), there’s been this national myth that, really, no one helped the occupiers, everyone was a resistant and all the evil-doing was auf Deutsch. The biggest collaborator of all, Philippe Pétain, was in fact tried for the crime, but the French couldn’t bear to give him the death penalty he richly deserved—they did reluctantly sentence him to death, but commuted it to imprisonment.
(They didn’t have the same problem with his deputy, Pierre Laval; they couldn’t wait to send him to the firing squad. Laval was the perfect target. His execution gave the French the satisfaction of having “dealt with” a big-wig collaborator and enabled them to pretty much dust their hands of the whole issue.)
The reality is murkier, as you’d expect. There was plenty of go-along-to-get-along cooperation with the Germans; it was a long four years of occupation. Notable among the goers-along were businesses large and small. SNCF would be one of them.
There were resistants, even within SNCF; which means that if some employees could sabotage operations then there were choices to be made. But, as with the country as a whole, it’s easier to think back on those days as perhaps their “greatest generation”, and pretend that the French were either heroes or victims.
But the Frogs are nothing if not pragmatic: the “profound sorrow and regret” expressed this week are directly related to bids that SNCF wants to put in to build high-speed rail networks in Florida and California. It seems both states are making noises about not doing business with any organization that refuses to acknowledge its involvement in the Holocaust.
C’est l’argent qui parle; et la fraternité qui marche.
However, the US has been engaged in its own cover-up about collaborating in giving refuge to Nazis who should have been dealt with as war criminals. The report the Times acquired this week documents five and a half decades of activities by some federal agencies (largely intelligence related) to protect these Nazis from other agencies (like Justice) that were trying to identify and prosecute war criminals. (And, BTW—this is our tax dollars at work: one agency working full bore against another.)
Our hands are not only not clean in this matter, the agencies are still trying like hell to obfuscate their involvement. If not for a lawsuit filed four years ago, we still wouldn’t have any official recognition. They all want to pretend that their actions were above board; or else that it was so long ago it really doesn’t matter anymore.
But here’s a clue: if you spend all this governmental capital on covering something up, it’s generally something that you wouldn’t want to brag to your grandchildren about.
I understand that, having made a deal with the Georgian devil to destroy the Austrian one, the Anglo-American governments got to 1945 and realized that Stalin was going to be more troublesome than expected, and they made more deals with a whole flock of Nazi devils to help in the Cold War. We don’t have the luxury of black and white clarity; it’s all half-tones.
But what bothers me is that going on for 60 years after the fact we’re still acting like we’ve taken the high road when obviously we’ve been grubbing around in the ditches.
Perhaps what our government needs is a financial incentive such as enticed SNCF into apologizing. If brotherhood won’t do it, maybe the money will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)