|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Question for the week
|
Men in White Coats Posted: 01/26/12 There is a respite in politics tonight: no debates, no speeches, just the nightly news touting its predictions. But that’s normalcy these days. So I’m diverting to other topics. “Men in white coats” means different things to Earl and me. In my case, it’s synonymous with medical situations, where doctors examine patients or – even more drastically – control those with emotional issues by subduing them in straightjackets. Earl’s definition extends to his belief that Hammacher Schlemmer, that catalog of the exaggerated that claims it “offers the best, the only, and the unexpected for 164 years,” never includes a product unless its men in white coats have approved it. It’s like the Good Housekeeping Seal. Here is an example of some of the items in Hammacher Schlemmer’s most recent catalog that arrived at our door earlier in the week. I leave it to you to determine if any of them need research done by men in white coats. Item #1: Circulation improving leg wraps that inflate and deflate to soothe sore muscles and reduce swelling in the lower extremities. Honestly, this reminds me of those things they put on my legs when I had surgery a couple years ago. They’re like giant blood pressure cuffs and just as aggravating. Item #2: A periscope binocular called the Doppelfernrohr used in the Cold War era for observation along the Berlin Wall. Of course, the Cold War has long ended, but this piece of optics is still for sale. The catalog’s description says it provides 10x magnification and amazing depth of field just as it did fifty years ago. It lists for $15,000 dollars. Item #3: The Cat’s Phantom Mouse Teaser, a toy that entertains and exercises your favorite feline friend by encouraging it to stalk an elusive mouse that scurries beneath a fabric skirt. Do cats really need this? I wonder if these items really need men in white coats, or in any color coat for that matter, to determine their worth to humanity. Earl swears by these men, but I scoff. I think the men in white are more a marketing concept than anything else.
State of the Union Posted: 01/24/12 President Barack Obama gave his State of the Union Address this evening in accordance with Article II, Sec. 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states, “The president shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” On January 8, 1790 our first President, George Washington, personally delivered his message to Congress. Back then “instant communication” was through newspapers only; and it remained so until 1923, when President Coolidge’s annual message was broadcast on the radio. Fast forward to today with instant communication, and our Presidents still adhere to the requirement of the U.S. Constitution. Here’s my beef. Why does the opposing party – it doesn’t matter if it is Democratic or Republican – feel the need to offer a rebuttal? There is no provision the Constitution for this. In fact, the first official opposition response to a president’s annual speech didn’t occur until 1966. And then, as now, we had a Democratic president and a Republican rebuttal. I’m probably too idealistic, but if the Constitution requires the President to make such a speech, why do we turn it into a political back-and-forth, especially at election time? For one night out of the year, why can’t we consider that the President is merely doing his job and doesn’t need a second opinion?
Stuffy Head Posted: 01/23/12 I am beset with a cold, not the worst I’ve ever had but certainly in the running. You know the symptoms as well as I do: watery eyes, red nose, voice an octave lower, and a chest that wonders if my lungs are doing their job. I’ve tried to mentally revisit the past few days to determine whom I might have had contact with and gotten this “gift” from. But most of my acquaintances seemed relatively healthy; nobody gave me forewarnings when we greeted; and, on top of everything, the weather has been so mild this winter that wet feet and damp heads haven’t been an issue.Perhaps it’s politically induced. How could this be? Well, let’s suspend reality a moment and consider these past few weeks on the campaign trail. They have been filled with vitriol and venom of all kinds on regular display via “debates” (I use the term loosely.). Could they be toxic? Could they attack the immune system if one if feels out of sorts with the political scene? Could they induce a low white blood cell count? I have no empirical data, nor am I interested in spending time finding some. But I think I shall not watch the debate tonight and see if I feel better in the morning. Ignorance could be bliss.
More Newt Posted: 01/20/12 Yesterday was a Charles Dickens Day for Newt Gingrich. It was the best of times as Governor Rick Perry stopped his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and threw his support to Newt who, in turn, gave public thanks. I’m a little confused here. Wasn’t the former Speaker of the House one of those Washington insiders that Perry criticizes? Regardless, there is one less contender in the race and Gingrich seems to be gaining momentum. But it was also the worst of times as Marianne Ginther, Newt’s second wife, went public with her version of the waning days in their marriage. Evidently, Newt was having an affair with Callista Bisek at the time and wanted Marianne to accept this. I’m not sure why she wouldn’t, because Newt had an affair with her while married to his first wife, Jackie Battley. However, she did not agree and used the term “open marriage” on ABC’s “Nightline” last night. It’s all very confusing, and it makes me wonder: “Is Newt more Mormon than Mitt?”
Previous entries Due to the volume of entries, Anne's Ten Minutes A Day are now categorized by date and by topics. Some essays are found under more than one topic. Otherwise, select from the categories below.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
