A Sad Day for Equal Rights

Today, the California Supreme Court handed out their decision on the controversial Proposition 8, passed by voters last November.

Their ruling, tragically, was in favor of upholding the proposition. In their edict, the justices stated that the actual ruling concerned whether or not voters had the right to amend the state's constitution, and in upholding the proposition, claimed that, yes, voters had that right.

Sadly, everyone, (including the judges), has missed the point by light years. That point being that the entire 'gay'/lesbian marriage/domestic partner issue is about equal rights for all people. In upholding Prop. 8, a serious blow has been dealt to the rights of a very large number of individuals.

Furthermore, the main opponents of this controversial proposition were religious right-wing church holier-than-thou people, who seem to have no clue whatsoever that any pronouncements about "morality," and "what god finds offensive," are the purview of churches, and not of the state.

Indeed, by the voters passing this proposition, and the judges in upholding it, our guarantee of separation of church and state has been sorely undermined. Remember, that guarantee is federal, found in the U.S. Constitution; it is not up to the State of California to overturn our federal rights.

Anyone who bothered to pay attention, or do a minimal amount of digging knows that the main funding, advertising campaigns and backing in favor of this horribly discriminatory piece of legislation came from two of the largest churches on the planet: the Catholics and the Mormons.

That is about as far wrong as anything can get! Deny it though they might, the paper trail speaks for itself.

Now, given our guaranteed separation of church and state, what business to churches, as organization, have messing about in our political process in the first place, and attempting (and often succeeding) in influencing the vote? No business whatever, that's what! This needs to be banned, and stopped, or we will soon find ourselves stripped of all the freedoms our forefathers worked and fought to put into place.

Let us not forget that this country was founded by people fleeing from religious persecution! The pilgrims wanted to worship as they saw fit. Their descendants assured that right to all future generations with their wise clause in the constitution making sure church stayed out of state business, and vice-versa. This also includes the right of atheists to have their views, and also not be persecuted for any 'failure to worship.'

Now, these people who call themselves the "moral majority," (which, by the way, is neither!), want to take all these protections away from everyone based on their own selfish, uneducated, intolerant, and yes, even brainwashed views! For as soon as the way is cleared for the oppression of any one group, or the removal of any guaranteed rights, the way is paved to make the next attack on anyone's rights all the easier.

The time has come for a rebellion! Rebel against moneyed special interests. Rebel against churches influencing state issues. Rebel against self-appointed religious "watchdogs" dictating to others how their lives should be lived.

It does not matter if these people hold the opinion that the gay "lifestyle" is "an "abomination to god." So what? What someone else does in their private life doesn't hurt these judgemental folks. It is, in the end, only their opinion (and we all know what those are worth!) The matter is still none of their business, and it is not their responsibility to babysit anyone else's "immortal soul." That is strictly the business of each individual unto himself. And incidentally, it's a pretty presumptuous position to take that any human knows the mind of any 'god.'

(And no, being 'gay' or lesbian is NOT a 'choice' or 'lifestyle'; it's a biological difference, and this is scientifically proven!) They need to do their homework before they spout off. Furthermore, if one believes in a god that supposedly "made everyone and everything," then that entity also made homosexuals...so to rail against homosexuality is, in the end, to find fault with the very god they claim to worship as the creator of all things. So if this godhead made people that are gay or lesbian, then are the complainers saying that their god made... junk? Ironic, isn't it?

Truth be told, nothing is new under the sun. Homosexuality has always been part of the human condition. The only difference in the modern era is the speed at which news travels combined with more openness and willingness to discuss formerly 'taboo' topics.

If these folks would follow the advice of "Live, and Let Live," and just mind their own business, the country, and even the world would be a much better and happier place.

Words and More, "Lesson" 2

Among the hundreds of thousands words in this crazy language we call “English,” there are hundreds ready and willing to trip us up at every turn. In this edition of the exploration of rascally words, I’ll expose more of the tricksters.

Some of the problems lie with an accumulated laziness of speech patterns, which seem to get worse with every passing generation. Others, as was pointed out before, are just snares in their own right, waiting to trip the unwary or careless.

To start with, lets examine a word having to do with facts: data. Notice I said ‘facts,’ in the plural That is ‘data.’ However, its singular form seems to be falling into disuse. A single fact is datum. “This datum.” “These data.” Awkward though it may sound, those are the correct forms. Thank our Latin section of language roots for that.

Let me digress for a moment. The problems people have with English are in large part due to it’s being a “bastard language.” English is descended mostly from Germanic roots, if we go back far enough in the etymology, but it has also borrowed heavily from French, Spanish, Italian, and Latin. The French, Spanish and Italian are all of Latin descent themselves. As a group, these are the ones often referred to as the “romance languages.” Coming down from their origins, then, modern day Italian remains nearest to its Latin roots, Spanish is next in line, and French has strayed the furthest away. With all this mix-up, and the Germanic roots, there is the compounding problem of attempting to apply Latin grammatical rules. No wonder people get aggravated trying to learn our spellings and usage!

The Germanic languages are themselves a far-reaching variety, including: Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, (of the Faroe islands) Danish, Yiddish, Dutch, Afrikaans, Flemish, Frisian, and of course, modern English and German. Of these languages, many have themselves borrowed from others, complicating things even worse.

With that out of the way, let’s move on with the discussion of just-plain-wrong usage. Blame it on today’s public school system. There are plenty of errors made even in print media, and people in those professions should certainly know better. I think proofreading has gone by the wayside.

A prime example often seen is this: “Advanced tickets now on sale for xyz event.” Wrong! Advanced means at an accelerated or higher level, as in “Sally was in the advanced placement English class,” or, “John has taken his guitar playing skill to an advanced level.” To obtain ahead of time, however, is to do so in advance. No ending “d.” So, the advertisement should read, “Advance ticket sales for xyz event available through such and such a date,” or, “I learned in advance about the test questions.”

“Of” is a frequently over-used and mis-used word. Consider this example: “Harry is a friend of Emily’s.” Incorrect, because the “of” is simply not needed. Instead, the correct form would be one of the following two choices: “Harry is Emily’s friend,” or “Harry is a friend of Emily.” The first example is wrong because it uses a double-possessive. By using the apostrophe and ‘s’ with Emily, it’s already been established that the friendship “belongs” to Emily…the “of” duplicates this indication.

Next up is the shade of difference between responsible and reliable. These words do have similar meanings, but not the same meaning. It is this subtle difference that can cause a world of separation in the final meaning of the statement.

For example, a person I knew years ago constantly used this pair incorrectly. If something went wrong at work, but was not within her job description, she would say, “I’m not reliable for that.” Wrong, because ‘reliable’ means trustworthy, able to be relied upon to carry out one’s duties or follow through on a promise. Responsible, on the other hand, is the word she should have used. Responsible means able to stand on ones’ own and do what is expected without supervision. In your job description, there are certain duties which you are expected to carry out. you are responsible doing your job properly. You are not responsible for a task which falls under someone else’s job description.

A responsible adult is a reliable person. This is not a redundancy; the words are so similar in meaning, that ‘reliable’ even appears far down the list of definitions of ‘responsible’ in the dictionary. That said, there are real distinctions in how they are used, and for most purposes, it is best not to consider them as synonymous or interchangeable.

Now, some further irritating plural forms. Just how maddening is a language which assigns the plural of mouse as mice, and yet the plural of moose is still moose, and not ‘meese’? As most children learn from Dr. Seuss, “one fish, two fish…” ..fish and fish are both plural and singular. Once the Dr. Seuss story moves on to “…red fish, blue fish…” we are now dealing with fishes. The plural remaining the same as the singular applies only to fish of all the same type. As soon as there are different kinds of fish involved, it becomes ‘fishes.’ If you have 10 goldfish in your aquarium, you have 10 fish. If you have 5 goldfish and 5 betas, you now have 10 fishes. With a fair amount of regularity, we hear the phrase, “all the fish in the sea.” To be absolutely correct, however, it should be, “all the fishes in the sea.”

The next item on today’s list falls strictly under lazy or careless pronunciation. I doubt that there are very many people who actually do not know the correct word. I refer to folks saying, “supposably” (no such word), when they mean, “supposedly.” There are not too many problems with understanding the definition:
most of us understand that ‘supposedly’ means “expected,” “in the ideal sense,” and “if things work as they should.” “The bus supposedly arrives at 10:00 a.m.” “He supposedly cleaned his room.” Maybe so, and maybe not. There is an “iffy-ness” to this word. In point of fact, it would be better to say, in the first example, “the bus is scheduled to arrive at 10:00 a.m.,” and in the second, “he was supposed to have cleaned his room.” Tricky, subtle shades of meaning.

Finally, I will move into the restaurants. What will you have to drink? Cold tea with ice cubes added? How often do you hear an order for “ice tea,” (which usually comes out sounding like “eyestee”) .. instead of the correct, “iced tea.” Granted, this one takes conscious thought to say correctly as it involves a “hard stop” to make the break between the words so they do not run together as one. Not impossible, however.

Be careful with the language! The more difficult the language, the more care must be taken, and the more diligent its speakers must be. Subtle variations and mispronunciations do matter. Fistfights and worse have been started over something said the wrong way; and on a global level, so have wars!

There’s the bell. Class dismissed!

The Death of Manners

The first hint that any society is in decay is a decline in manners and courtesy. Witness the upsurge of the "me generation" of the 1990's (and to some extent the 1980's), which shows no signs of abating, and is, in fact, increasing at an exponential rate. The folks who back then were so into "looking out for number one" are now raising (or have raised) children, and passing on those same selfish attitudes.

Folks do not seem to realize that selfishness and greed are connected to more than just their own private lives. Oh, but I forgot...they don't care about anyone else or the connections...and that is the whole problem.

It begins with small slips of decorum, such as neglecting to thank someone for holding a door open, or not writing a thank-you note to someone for a gift. Over time, these small lapses grow into larger and more glaring errors of etiquette, such as a younger person refusing to give their bus seat to an elderly person, or deliberately allowing a door to swing shut in someone's face.

An invitation to an event, any event, normally has the letters "RSVP" at the bottom. Everyone knows what this means. It means the courtesy of a reply is requested, and polite persons will reply. All it takes is a short phone call, or even an e-mail, "I'm sorry, I have a prior appointment, and won't be able to attend." Or, "Thank you very much for inviting me. I'd be delighted to come and share your celebration."

It's very simple, very quick, to do, and it is very rude to ignore an RSVP. It is even more rude to reply that you will come, and then not show up, and with no notification or apology. It is the rudest behavior of all to offer a "maybe, if no better offers come up in the meantime," reply, or to call at the last minute and tell the host that you will not come after all because so-and-so invited you to something else more recently.

This behavior is insulting to the hosts, and is like a slap in the face. Everyone today is so focused on "me first and foremost" that they have completely forgotten how to imagine themselves in the other person's place, and how that behavior would make them feel. (Remember the old Golden Rule? "Treat others as you would like to be treated"? It is as valid today as it ever was.)

After all, the host/hostess has a lot of planning to do--they need to know how many people to plan for. What if they bought all the food for the party, and no one bothered to show up, and no one had replied to the invitation? The hosts have spent all that money for nothing, because they did not know that their party was perhaps at a bad time, so they could cancel the event instead. Now they are stuck with food "for an army," and much in the way of party fare does not keep well. What a waste!

Next it is the selfish person who zips around the corner and into that parking space that they perfectly well have seen you sitting and waiting for, with your turn signal on. Or the road hog: we've all seen the type--thinks it is perfectly acceptable to block traffic while he lets off a passenger or carries on a conversation with the guy in the car going the other way. Then there's the guy in a hurry weaving in and out of traffic, driving using his horn to yell, "get out of my way! I'm more important than you are!" Very rude behaviors all.

Manners are the very glue that holds society together, as well as the lubricant that keeps it running smoothly. When manners go into decline, all sorts of bad things happen. It follows that not caring about those in one's immediate circle leads to devaluing everyone else as well. This is the origin of greed.

Me first, me in the middle, and me last, and me for me and to blazes with everyone else. It is from this mindset that jobs are lost to offshore "outsourcing," because the CEO of the corporation is greedy, cares only for his own bottom line and his own wealth, and gives not a hoot for the well being of either his workers or that of his community. It is all about short-term gain, and has no long range benefit. This is the mindset that has put the country into its current economic state.

On the other side of the same coin are the folks with the same mindset as the CEO, but who are in a much different place economically speaking. They do not have either the education or the drive to make something of themselves, so they waste their lives away pimping, dealing drugs, shooting each other in gang wars, and committing crimes against law-abiding citizens.

The only difference between these two groups lies in technicalities of the law. The CEO is technically within legal rights (even though his actions are unethical in the extreme) to destroy someone's livelihood and ability to earn a living. The gang member is breaking laws concerning assorted drugs and how he obtains and distributes them, and is also flouting laws about use of guns. As he shoots his victim to gain a few bucks from that person's wallet, he has also destroyed someone's ability to earn a living. If that person is killed in the process, the gang member has destroyed more than just a livelihood for the survivors--he has destroyed a family, destroyed their ability to trust, and fostered a good reason for predjudice.

These differences are only about which side of the law a person decides to follow: the end result of both courses of action is the same. The community is destroyed, blighted, becomes run down, and illegal activity blossoms because of loss of hope. Even those who were once law-abiding citizens may turn to stealing in an effort to keep their family fed and clothed.

It is sad that we have come to this place. Why not be the one to put a stop to this downhill slide? One person can make a difference--lead by example--and teach children that it is not 'ok' to bully, lie, cheat, steal or be rude.

Get a grip on yourself, America! Wake up from this selfish trap...for a trap it surely is, and as we are seeing daily in the news, those who pursue these ways of living eventually end up getting caught, paying dearly, and loosing everything they had. Ah, but the damage they have done is not so easily put to rights. The damage caused by the selfish generation will be with us for a long time to come. It did not happen overnight, and it will not be cured overnight. But cure it we must, and the time to start the process of change is right this very instant!

A Joke

There was once a sea captain who had a faithful cabin boy. When they would encounter hostile ships, the captain would say, "Cabin boy! Bring me my red shirt!"
This happened on several occasions, and finally the cabin boy asked, "Captain, why do you always call for a red shirt when we go into battle?"
The captain replied, "Because if I am hit, the blood will not show, and my crew will have the courage and will to carry on."

All was well for some time, until one day the captain found himself surrounded by the entire British Naval fleet. "Cabin boy!" he shouted, "Bring me my brown pants!"

WORDS, WORDS AND MORE WORDS

A COMPENDIUM OF OFTEN CONFUSED, MISUSED, AND UNUSUAL WORDS

In the interest of making this more interesting and readable than simply looking things up in the dictionary, I offer here a random sampling of words that often seem to cause problems in both written and spoken English. To that end, nothing is in alphabetical order.

Some of the problems stem from cultural laziness; taking shortcuts in the proper pronunciation of common, everyday words—a study known in our grandparent’s generation as ‘elocution’—it was a specific subject taught in school. The fact that this is no longer taught as a subject unto itself is blatantly evident today.

One of the most common, and most grating misuses is the confusion of “then” and “than.” It seems that the majority of misuse with this pair of words errs on the side of always using “then” and forgetting the existence of “than.”

I have lost count of how often I have come across the misuse of “then” in this vein: “I would rather have chocolate pie then cherry.” This is wrong because “then” is a word referring to time sequence. The proper use of “then” would be as in this example: “I went to the bank, then I went to the store.” In the choice of pie example above, “than” is the correct usage: “I would rather have chocolate pie than cherry.” “Than” is a word for comparisons and statements of preference; it has nothing to do with time or sequence. You could also correctly say, “I ate the chocolate pie and then I ate the cherry pie, but I liked the chocolate better than the cherry.”

Other less common mistakes occur when someone seems to simply not know the definition of a given word. In more than one case, I have heard folks mix up “fray” and “frail.” One lady I used to know always would speak of her coat “frailing.” Worse than using the wrong word, she also added an incorrect suffix in an attempt to make it into an active present tense. “Frail” is not a verb—it cannot take such an attempt to assign tense. To fray is to come undone; to unravel or become ragged. Frail means weak; not strong. Correct usages of this pair: “The sleeve of my jacket is starting to fray.” “My grandmother has become very frail.”

English is a devilishly confusing language, I’ll agree. It is filled with unruly words that change their meaning with a whim of pronunciation, yet don’t change their spelling. “Present” comes to mind. To “present arms” is spelled exactly the same as its use in “give a present.” The shift happens in the emphasis on the syllable, and with the change of the first “e” from long to short.

Language, however, is fluid, and does change over time. For example, a hundred years ago, “ain’t” was acceptable common usage. Now it is considered grammatically incorrect, and disdained as slang, uneducated usage. “Gay” is another case in point: its original meaning was, “carefree, happy, lighthearted.”

I can well imagine that in another hundred years, thanks in large measure to the internet with its chat rooms, instant messaging, and other forms of electronic communication, that we will see other words elided (that is, shortened, with their spelling changed). The one I see most often is the substitution/abbreviation of “prolly” as a stand-in for “probably.” There are others, I know. Perhaps an Internet dictionary is in order. ;-)

Some words are mixed up because someone is trying to show off their idea of advanced vocabulary, when in fact, they do not know the true meaning of the words they are using. “Flout” and “flaunt” are a pair that fall into this trap. “Flout” means to show disregard for, to ignore, and do as one pleases despite a rule. “His habit of flouting the law got him into continual trouble.” “Flaunt,” on the other hand, means to show off excessively; to be “in your face.” “She was flaunting the large diamond ring on her finger.”

At other times, the misuse falls rather under failure to have specific knowledge of a subject, not knowing the ‘jargon’ if you will. Most every adult knows what an autopsy is. However, many people will speak of an autopsy on an animal, whether found dead at the zoo, in a wildlife study, or of a beloved pet. This is incorrect—a dissection to determine cause of death on an animal is a necropsy.

Why? Well, I must get into a bit of Latin word origins for that one. the prefix “auto” means “self,” so an “auto-psy” is a dissection of a human being…one of ourselves. While necrosis is the state of being dead, and since animals are not “one of us,” but simply another life form that is deceased, so ‘necropsy’ is the correct terminology.

The "opsy" suffix common to both words, means to study a sample of; to examine for cause or pathology. Hence, a living person can have a biopsy taken of a body part or organ, for study to determine cause of illness. (Bio= life; live; living) and the 'opsy' suffix as discussed above.)

****************************************

Lie, Lay, Lain: This triad is a bugaboo for many, many folks…(myself included!)…I have to keep a ‘cheat sheet’ handy when I’m writing. This is one of those annoying “irregular” verbs. Let’s sort it out:

To lie is to recline, as on a bed, or a command given to a dog, “lie down!” That is the present tense. Awkward though it may sound, the past tense is lay, “The dog lay down.” and the past participle is lain. “The dog has lain in this spot.”

Now, to “the other side” of this triad: lay in the present tense means to put, “Lay the book on the table.” Past tense, laid, “I laid the book on the table.” Ironically, the past participle of this set is the same as the past tense, laid. “I had laid the book on the table, and now it is gone.”

Next, I come to a pair I just heard misused the other day: collaborate and corroborate. Not synonymous, to be sure. To ‘collaborate,’ is to work together with another person or a team: “He collaborated with Charles and Gail to finish the project.” Corroborate means to agree, back up, or substantiate. “His testimony corroborated the claims of the other witnesses.”

*********************************************


And just for fun: Some $5. words for more common expressions:

Oeuvre: 1. a work of art. 2. the lifework of an artist, writer or composer

Aphorism: an adage or saying

(such as, "One man's drink is another man's poison," or, "He who lies with dogs wakes with fleas.")

Isogloss: a geographical boundary line delimiting the area in which a given linguistic feature occurs.

(Example: "limber cream" means heavy cream that is still liquid and has not been made into whipped cream. My grandfather came from New Bedford, Massachussetts, and I have not heard that expression anywhere else, nor has anyone else I know who does not hail from that area of the country.)

Solecism: 1. non-standard usage or grammatical construction. 2. a violation of etiquette. 3. an impropriety, mistake or incongruity.

**********************************************************************

Thanks for stopping by! I hope you enjoyed this foray into the oddities of the English Language. There may be more articles forthcoming as I come across other problematic useages.

Olympic Games, 2008 tardy posting!

Yes, I agree: this posting is not timely...something happened, and it did not post when I first tried to publish it...so, my apologies for the unseemly delay.

A forum for the world to set the best athletes of each country against each other in a fair and unbiased competition. Or so states the ideal. As we know, ideals are one thing, facts are quite another, and often fall miserably short of the stated ideals.



The Beijing Olympic Games of 2008 are no exception. There have been no shortages of egregious errors in judging, particularly noticeable in the gymnastics competition. In fact, it is one of the few, if not the only Olypmic arena in which the foilbles of human judgement come into play throughout the contest. Most of the other contests rely on super-accurate electronic timers.



There have been so many fiascos in these games as to render the entire concept laughable. This was not a contest of athletes; it was a contest of nationalities, ridiculously complicated rules, and faulty scoring systems. In an attempt to prevent national bias (an admirable ideal) the judging was faulty because the none of the judges were not allowed to be from any country entering a team in the competition. Sounds good, on the surface.



The end result, however, was that the judging was as badly skewed due to incompetence of the judges: if your country does not have a gymnastics team, then what in blazes to the "judges" think they know about the sport? Only so much can be gained from a rule book, or watching the sport a few times on TV. Significant nuances are missed, and massive flaws and mistakes get ignored.



The women's final on the vault is a prime example. Alicia Sacramone was, in the words of Bella Karolyi "ripped off" of her chance at a medal. How could the judges possibly have awarded a higher score to Chung Fei, who not only did not 'stick' her landing, but failed to complete the final rotation of her vault, and actually landed on her knees? This was not a matter of falling after landing: she never landed on her feet at all--she landed down on her knees. This was a huge mistake! Were the judges completely blind? Why did they not deduct the appropriate points for this 'fault on the vault'? Were they also blind to the fact that Alicia performed a very solid vault, and redeemed herself from the previous day's disasters in her routines? Did they still carry a bias of 'punishment' for her into the next event? It was just plain wrong.



Team USA should have filed a protest against this score.



Next, comes the finals on the uneven bars. Nastia Lukin and He Xing tied. The tiebreaker confusion controversy aside for the moment, there never should have been a tie in the first place. He made 2 very noticeable errors, including a side-step on her landing. There were other, more subtle errors within the routine. Nastia, meanwhile, did one of her very best routines, with much more minor 'faults' to be found within, and, she stuck her landing!



The outcome of the tiebreaker on the uneven bars was most unfortunate; it resulted in an undeserved gold for He, and a disappointing silver for Lukin. If the judging had been accurate to start with, there would have been no tie, and the ridiculously complex 'tiebreaker rules' would not have to have been applied. These rules were apparently taken out of 'human' hands, written into a computer program, and done automatically.



I'm not impressed! A human (or worse, a committee) had to think up the series of rules, and they then had to be entered into a computer program by another human. Mistakes can be made. Even if no mistakes were made in the programming, the first mistake was in making such a complex set of rules. The I.O.C. has apparently never heard of the "K.I.S.S." principle: "Keep It Simple, Stupid." The garbage that resulted reminds me of another aphorism relative to computers: "GIGO," meaning, "Garbage In, Garbage Out." It was certainly garbage that went into the concept of these new scoring and tiebreaker rules, and garbage that came out at the end.



Now, it strikes me, that complex rules or not, there is already well and fully in place the perfect mechanism for squaring up the judging, and making things absolutely fair, no matter who the judges are, even if they were from a country whose athletes were participating in the given contest. It has existed and been used for years in professional football, and even earlier in horse racing. It is the camera. The olympic venue is plastered with cameras viewing all the events from every conceivable angle, and there is not a network there without the capability to instantly retrieve and reply any shot, and do so in slow motion if necessary.



When there is a disputed call in football, the team managers and referees will go to the instant replay to settle the issue. The camera knows. If team USA had filed a protest over Cheng Fei's artificially inflated vault score, and if the judges had been forced to review a tape and really acknowledge the errors, (several besides the unfortunate landing), there would have been no excuse for such an incorrect score. She fell. She did not complete her rotation sufficiently to land properly. A 6-year-old with no gymnastics training could have seen that. Were the judges watching the audience instead, and taking cues from the cheers and shouts? Or were they wearing horse blinders? Perhaps using a mental dartboard, and tossing darts at random numbers?



The technology is here, and has been for many years. Let's rule in favor of fairness for all the athletes, not just those in timed events, and bring in instant replay review, and the ability for any team to challenge what is obviously an unfair and undeserved score.

Ahh, Progress!

We have seen a lot of progress since the beginnings of humankind. From cave dwellers to hut builders, to stone workers, on up through the industrial revolution and into the present day. Wonders of imagination and invention galore are presented for our wonderment.

That said, let's examine the entire concept of 'progress.' Progress has been beneficial in many ways, not so in other ways. Put another way, progress only for its own sake is not always the best course of action.

Conversely, maintaining a tradition only for its own sake is no better.

I am reminded of the story of a new bride fixing a roast for her husband. He observed as she cut off the end of the roast prior to placing it in the pan. Curious, he asked her why she did this. "I don't really know," was the answer, "except that's the way my mom always did it."

Seeking a reason for this odd custom, the couple called the bride's mother and asked her. Her reply? Exactly the same: "I don't know; that's how my mother always did it."

As luck would have it, Grandmama was still living, so the next call went to her. "Why, Grandma, did you always cut the ends off the roasts?" "Well," replied the old woman, "that was the only way it would fit in the pan I had."

Mystery solved, but not applicable to the current couple's situation, and proof that 'just because that's always how it's been done" is not a good reason in and of itself for continuing a tradition.

*************************

On the progress side of the equation, comes much of modern packaging. Just because we can package products in plastic 'clamshells' that require a chain saw to open and a trip to the emergency room to stitch up the fingers sliced on the resulting sharp edges, does not mean we should use such packages!

Bread wrappers also come to mind. When I was growing up, bread was packaged in cellophane wrap. It was rather fragile, usually tore beyond the point needed for getting the bread out, and it did not keep the bread especially fresh. Bread going stale was a common problem.

No matter. There are lots of uses for stale bread: make croutons for salad or turkey stuffing; make French toast; make bread pudding; grind it up for crumbs for breading food, or even go feed the ducks in the park.

Today, bread is wrapped in much stronger plastic bags which do not tear so easily, and keep the bread fresh down to the last slilce. Trouble is, unless your family goes through bread at a fantastic pace, it tends to get moldy instead of stale. In contrast to all the listed uses for stale bread, I can think of none for moldy bread. Putting it in the refrigerator keeps it from going moldy, but it also somehow makes it of a disagreeable consistency.

Milk used to come in waxed paper cartons. They were biodegradable; now, it comes in plastic jugs, which are not. There are howls galore about all the non-biodegradable 'stuff' going into landfills. Recycling programs are not what they are cracked up to be, and much so-called 'recyclable' waste ends up in the landfills anyway.

There is much hue and cry about recycling and "greening the planet," however, many of the concepts fall under yet more of the rampant "ideas not well-thought-through." For example:

One should not dump discards as litter on the side of the road. They should be taken to an appropriate disposal facility. In theory, not an issue. In practice, however, this is not an affordable option for many people. Not only is there a fee to offload a truck or carload at the dumps, but additional fees are imposed for certain categories of items. Where I live, for instance, the basic dump fee runs approximately $35. per load. Not too bad, so far.

But then add on a special fee on top of the basic fee at these rates: $25 for things such as microwave ovens, televisions, mattresses, $75 for refrigerators, and suddenly the 'affordable' dump fee jumps out of line and out of budget range for many, many people. You can easily tell which items generate the extra charges, for those are the very things seen dumped on roadsides or in vacant lots or even abandoned in front or back yards causing visual blight and resulting dereliction of the neighborhood.

If city/county managers want to see proper disposal, then they must not make such excess charges for said disposal. If they are going to insist on those charges, then they must not complain about roadside dumping. They cannot have it both ways.

Likewise, curbside recycling programs are for the most part very flawed. Again, taking my own general region as an example, our curbside recycle program has a long list of items it will not accept, including 'chipboard' (which it defines as cereal box-type cardboard), several kinds of plastics, and other items.
They cite "lack of a post-consumer market" for these items. Oh, really? How very interesting, because the very next-door town accepts all of these items, and more, including some of the types of things which would normally be found taken to the dumps, such as discarded clothing and broken appliances--all can go in the recycle bin. Hmmmm.......

On the other side of this ludicrous recycling effort is the 'green waste,' otherwise known as garden waste. Back in historic times, this was not waste...it was composted back into the soil for growing next season's crops. No matter that we no longer each grow our own food--such use is still the purported end result of our modern green waste curbside pickup services.

Once again, however, the powers that be have failed a test of logic in their scheduling. In the next-door community mentioned above, their green waste is picked up each week. This is a city of fairly large homes, some on good-sized lots with ample landscaping; precious few remaining rural or semi-rural areas, and a good measure of the new "zero lot" homes, for homeowners who do not wish to be bothered with yard work, and on which the home takes up the majority of the property.
In any case, not a green-waste-heavy area.

In my town, though, there is a much larger share of rural, semi-rural and large lot homes, yet our green waste is picked up only every other week. Once a week would be better. Who was in charge of these schedules, and what were they thinking?

Our curbside recyclables, however, are picked up each week, while those of our neighbors, (who, as mentioned, can place many more types of items for recycle), are picked up only on the rotating week schedule. Guess whose bins fill up faster?? A no-brainer!

Meanwhile, the cardboard recycle for our picky-picky recycle community is taken away regardless of whether or not 'chipboard' has been included. Obviously, the collectors do not have the time (or inclination) to sort through the bin, so how would they know if any was included or not? Right. They won't. And in the end, it all goes to the same facilities, and through the same processes, so what does it matter? It is getting recycled, and I thought that was the whole point!!

In the end, I don't believe much is being done--it's all window-dressing and no real substance. Laws mandating recycling and landfill reduction are passed, but with no teeth for enforcement, and too many loopholes for various agencies to opt out of full compliance. If landfill reduction at a certain percentage has been mandated by law, then local agencies should not be allowed to refuse acceptance of any recyclable item. Period. What say you? Is it time to raise your voice to your own local government agency?