This NYTimes piece says it may be returning. People mostly aren't masking--the Post mentioned very few masked at last night's state dinner. And they aren't boosting.
(I got my fifth shot, the co-valent booster) the other day. I sometimes mask, sometimes don't.) We seem to be accepting of roughly 300 deaths a day, or maybe 100,000 a year. What does the future hold
Discussing our childhoods with a cousin, we both had the experience of Life magazine. For me it was a new perspective on the world. Before another cousin passed on a few old copies of Life in the late 40's, I hadn't seen many pictures. Newspapers at that time didn't print many photographs, certainly nothing in color. What pictures I did see were mostly advertising illustrations.
There were, of course, the newsreels at the movies, but we didn't go to them very often, usually just to Disney movies maybe four or five times a year.
The same cousin who provided the issues of Life also passed on a few National Geographics. Both magazines were a revelation, in their different ways. For one, my definition of decolletage is linked to Sophia Loren.
Since the 1950's we've become a much more visual culture, between the internet, cellphones, and streaming video. I don't know what the change means for other aspects of society, though likely today's childen will never have the same feelings as I did in viewing Ms. Loren (whose wikipedia entry images doesn't include any low necklines.)
Is there a relationship between the decline of amateurism, most recently seen in the NCAA's new rules on name, image, likeness (NIL) and the desire to work remotely?
I think there is. Both were subjects in today's newspapers. Today's not a good blogging day, may expand my thoughts later.
When my family first got a TV, the NY Giants games were the ones mostly on TV, so I became a Giant fan. I remember the games with the Cleveland Browns and the greatest NFL back, Jim Brown (who once scored 6 touchdowns against my alma mater, setting a record that lasted for 40+ years, and he didn't just score TD's, he kicked the extra points as well).
When I got to college, I worked in a dorm kitchen along with a man from Long Island. At that time lacrosse was very much a niche sport; I think it was popular on Long Island and upstate NY where Native Americans continued to play. As good as Jim Brown was at football, he was better at lacrosse, as John told me at the time and was ratified by the lacrosse people.
We're seeing a turnover of House leadership for the Democrats. That's good; we need younger members and younger leaders. Sen. Schumer seems to have been effective in the Senate, but there too I'd like to see newer leadership.
While there's a reasonable argument that some people of my age and above still have good judgment, and that judgment is the most important attribute of a leader, I think it's mistaken. Leadership is many things, judgment only part of it. So somehow I'd like to see the Democrats come up with a new candidate for the presidency in 2024, but one with good chances of winning, and one who will help candidates for other offices on the ballot. Maintaining control of the Senate will be difficult; the map is against us. Continuing to make progress in state legislatures and governorships is very important.
Currently reading Sen. Leahy's memoir. He entered the Senate in 1974 and was barely re-elected in 1980. It's an easy read, anecdotal and more about persons than policy or procedure.
One point--Reagan's victory in 1980 swept out a bunch of Democratic senators; only Leahy and Gary Hart of the 1974 Watergate class survived in the Senate. Was this the turning point to partisanship? He mentions Carter's farewell address, which included a warning against single-interest organizations. I think the reality is that organizations trying to influence Congress have become more and more specialized over the years. For example, we used to have the "farm lobby", composed of three big national organizations--Farm Bureau, Grange, National Farmers Union. But over time single commodity groups have become more important and more wide-spread.
I've got a couple books in my library queue about the growth of partisan politices; both of which I think go back to the 1990's, but not before.
On a farm, with animals, Thanksgiving Day is like any other. The cows have to be fed and milked, the manure has to be moved to the spreader and spread, the hens have to be fed, the eggs have to be gathered.
Since we raised chickens, that, not turkey, was our Thanksgiving entree. It was still special; you might expect we were eating chicken regularly but not so. Chickens laid eggs, that was their role in our ecosystem. As you only eat your seed corn in desperate times you don't eat your egg layers.
The usual menu IIRC was chicken, mashed potatoes (bought), and green beans (canned from the garden), with pie for desert.
Typically it was just the four of us at the table, which might mean conflict. Or not.
After the meal and some rest, the routines resumed. More milking, more feeding, more egg gathering, cleaning and packing.
Two possible pictures of humans:
The consensus of historians is the cause of the Civil War was slavery. Evidence includes the assertions of many Southern leaders, as documented in the secession resolutions.
A few people have worried about a new civil war. I don't share that worry, but out of my contrarian spirit I wonder this: if we were to have a new civil war, what would be the cause?
[Added: my point is that everything is clearer in hindsight.]
