Halloween

Halloween is a complicated holiday.

In a future post I will write about my affection for MOST holidays, including Halloween.

I suppose most holidays have related controversies. Since I have no objection to the observance of Halloween, I cannot accurately state what makes Halloween controversial, but it seems to be related to the idea that Halloween, at least in its present-day form, deals with ghosts and witches and monsters, and possibly violence or at least mischief.

As I was growing up in the American Midwest, one of our pre-Halloween customs was to sneak around in the evenings preceding Halloween and throw handfuls of shelled field corn at our neighbors' windows. This custom has largely died out in this community, though I do not know why. Even while I was still participating in the custom in the 1960s, there was talk that the corn left on the ground might draw rodents and especially rats, but I never viewed that as a legitimate concern. In slightly earlier days, children made a device that my father called a "tic-tac", though I have just found on the web referred to as a "tic-tac-toe" (this link seems a little iffy, but there is a thorough reference to tic-tacs at http://books.google.com/books?id=TKBGvbp7TEYC&pg=PA147). The tic-tac made a similar sound to corn hitting the window, but more dramatic, and required the mischief-maker to actually stand beside the window, so more courage was necessary, and there was more danger of being caught by those inside the house -- which is perhaps why they were rarely used in my childhood. With both the corn and the tic-tac, the objective was to startle those inside the house, which would possibly cause them to give chase. No other damage was intended.

Another prominent pre-Halloween activity in my youth was "soaping windows". Like a tic-tac, this required the mischief-maker to step right up to the window, and smear a bar of soap on it, possibly writing something or making a design. I can honestly say that I never soaped a single window. Though there was no permanent damage, the practice seemed a bit malicious rather than fun.

A custom that persists to this day is the smashing of Halloween carved pumpkins, or "jack-o'-lanterns". This was not common in my youth. I find it highly objectionable, partly because the pumpkin-carver is often a younger child, and the pumpkin-smasher is often an older child who gets some thrill out of destroying an object of happiness belonging to a young stranger. Whether the pumpkin-carver was young or old, the act of carving the pumpkin had no particular "purpose" other than to bring pleasure, perhaps both to the carver and those who would see it later, and the act of smashing it is just senseless and mean, giving no benefit to the smasher other than the pleasure of depriving other people of happiness and the destruction of the product of some one's labor, not to mention their property. Pumpkin-smashing is abhorrent.

I know that there are people who object to the observance of Halloween on religious grounds. I see no particular basis for their objections, but perhaps this is just the product of my own lack of understanding of their objections.

One of the things that I enjoy about Halloween is that I feel that I am carrying on a centuries-old tradition -- a product of simpler, possibly more mysterious times -- and in some way showing respect for the past. I do NOT feel I am showing respect or disrespect for any particular religion or belief system. I also feel that I am sharing fun with my neighbors.

I have not even mentioned "Trick-or-treating". This custom has also evolved over time and since my youth, but it persists in various forms, and I am happy it persists, though I am mostly happy for the sake of the children.

As for me, I will carve my jack-o'-lantern, and put a few decorations in the windows, and wish everyone a Happy Halloween. Happy Halloween to YOU!

Blogger "User Profile"

The "blogger" service offers a way to generate a "User Profile" using the blogspot template. Perhaps if I was wiser and more experienced, I could figure out a way to bypass or at least modify their template, but for now, their template is what I have available.

When you click on "Edit Profile" it brings up eight sections: Privacy, Identity, Photograph, Audio Clip, General, Location, Work, and Extended Info.

Under "Privacy", there are checkboxes for "Share my profile", "Show my real name", "Show my email address", "Show my blogs", and "Show sites I follow". The entire "Share my profile" question would seem to depend partly on what information my profile contains. For now, I have decided to keep my identity at least somewhat private, for a variety of complicated reasons -- so I won't be showing my real name, however I will show an e-mail address, though e-mail inboxes can quickly fill with spam. My first blogs were pretty much "practice" blogs, so there doesn't seem to be any point in showing them. At the moment, I don't particularly "follow" any sites; if I DID, I'm not sure I would want to share that info.

Under "Identity" we have "Username" (required), "Email Address", "Display Name" (required), "First Name", and "Last Name". Most of this is covered in the "Privacy" section.

Under "Photograph" there is only "Photo URL", but then you are given a choice between a photo "From your computer" or "From the web". This is a tricky one, but I suppose that if I am interested in privacy, I should either leave this blank or post something vague, amusing, or thought-provoking.

For "Audio Clip" there is only "Audio Clip URL". This is even more puzzling, and I will probably leave it blank for the forseeable future.

General includes "Gender" (with boxes for male, female, and "not specified"), "Birthday" (with an option to leave the YEAR blank, and a checkbox for "Show astrological signs"), "Homepage URL", "Wishlist URL" (with an option to "Create a wishlist"), and "IM username" (with a pull-down list of different IM services). Privacy concerns one again come into play, and there is also the question of relevance. For now, I guess I will admit that I am male. I have a couple different web sites, but none that are specifically about ME, and posting those would also raise privacy concerns. I might decide to post my astrological sign, but posting your astrological sign leads not-necessarily-correct assumptions about how I feel about astrological signs.

Then there is "Location" with "City/Town", "Region/State", and a pull-down list for "Country". I live in a small city in the midwestern USA -- beyond that, questions of privacy and relevance kick in.

"Work" includes a pull-down list for "Industry" and a blank to fill in for "Occupation". Personally, I consider this to be among the most complicated issues -- the entire issue of to what extent our "occupation" is relevant to who we are. I suppose I will deal with this in blog postings, but it's too complicated for a pull-down list and a filled-in blank.

Finally there is "Extended Info". This area provides larger blank boxes, and instructions to separate things by commas for the categories of "Interests", "Favorite Movies", "Favorite Music", and "Favorite Books". Actually, between the "Interests" and "Favorite Movies" is the "About Me" section, with a note that you may write as little or as much as you'd like, up to 1200 characters. The section concludes with the mysterious "Random Question" -- at this point, I can only assume Blogger generates a question. The big problem with these boxes is that without a detailed, complicated discussion, its easy for someone glancing at the lists to come up with wrong assumptions. Once in college I identified the works of Shakespeare as among my favorites, and a suspicious instructor asked WHY I like Shakespeare. When I mentioned that I found Shakespeare to be funny, the instructor replied that "Yes, his comedies are funny," and I quickly clarified that I thought the Shakespeare's TRAGEDIES were funny, much to the instructor's consternation.

Still, I will try and include some info about this stuff: Amongst my interests, in no particular order, are history and travel and animals and music, to name a few. I rarely attend movies in theaters any more, and, as a general rule, prefer somewhat older movies to more recent. This applies especially to horror movies -- if I get a chance to watch a Boris Karloff movie, I will, and will definitely choose it over any more recent "slasher" flick. This brings up the fact that since I do not rent or attend movies, I am pretty much limited to what they show on television, and they tend to no longer show many of my favorites, including comedies like WC Fields or the Marx Brothers -- neither of which I have seen in decades. I like old war movies, especially the stereotypical ones from WWII where a squad of soldiers is on some particular mission, like blowing up an ammo dump. I have a special fondness for the early Clint Eastwood "spaghetti westerns", which are among the most recent movies on my "favorites" list. I like James Bond movies but I have not seen the most recent ones. It is perhaps relevant to admit that I have not seen many of the most popular movies of the last forty years -- I have never seen any of the Godfather movies, and though I saw the original Star Wars I have not seen the sequals, and I have never seen "Apocalypse Now" though I like "Heart of Darkness".

I guess that moves us into the "favorite books" area (I will return to "favorite music"). I do not read nearly as much as I would like. In recent years I suppose I have read more books on dog training than any other topic. In general, I prefer non-fiction. I possess an extensive library of books about polar exploration -- "Scott of the Antarctic" is one of my heroes -- and also like books about adventures like mountain climbing and exotic travel. As with movies, I tend to favor older over newer books. In my younger days, book sales where libraries unloaded their older books made me giddy, and I have a LOT of books.

"Favorite Music" is an especially complicated topic for me. Though my music tastes vary from moment to moment, I like to think I have a certain appreciation for MOST music, with the general category of "rap" being a notable exception. One of the problems with discussing music is that you need to possess a certain basic knowledge to even know what you DON'T like. For example, I am not sure that I have much appreciation for "heavy metal", but I am also not sure that I know enough about what constitutes "heavy metal" to say that I don't like it. I am not a big fan of opera, especially Italian Opera. With time, I have developed a certain begrudging acceptance for some of the less melodic 20th century classical music, though I still have my doubts about whether all of it should be called "music".

There is so much music that I LIKE that it is overwhelming to try and list it. I like pop, rock (though my tastes now tend toward "oldies" rock), country (though I have not listened much to the country music produced over the last decade or two), classical, jazz (favoring dixieland and 1920s Chicago style over more recent varieties), and folk (I enjoy things like Irish music and Peruvian folk bands, but don't have much expertise in these areas). I rarely attend Broadway-style shows, and do not consider myself much of a fan, but I attended an amazing "Phantom of the Opera" performance and now have at least a partial appreciation for the genre.

My listening tastes seem to be influenced by the music that I can actually perform myself. I play various instruments, and sing for myself (I rarely sing publicly), and I find that I tend to listen to music that I can in some way perform. In my earlier days I played in a rock band, and I still play in brass bands and orchestras and a variety of smaller groups. One interesting result is that I more often listen to male vocalists, such as James Taylor or Gordon Lightfoot, than female vocalists, such as Joni Mitchell or Anne Murray, since it works better for ME to try and duplicate their songs. Some of my favorite recording artists are slightly obscure folksy types like John Prine and Steve Goodman and David Bromberg.

This leaves the "About Me" section, with its 1200 character limit. Though I am sure you can come up with a lot of thought-provoking discussions by trying to briefly describe yourself, I am not sure it results in anything approaching truth or accuracy. Since one of my most basic beliefs is that words are inherently unclear, and leave room for misinterpretation, I tend to use a LOT of words in an attempt to be clear. I find it very difficult to be comfortable with limiting my "About Me" section to 1200 characters, but I suppose that is the ONE area of the template I will attempt to fill in.

Truth is complicated.

"You lie!"

Thirteen months ago, as the President of the United States was making a speech to a joint session of Congress, one of the Congressmen shouted out "You lie!" I am deliberately not mentioning the name of the President, or of the Congressman, or the subject or context. I believe all those things distract from what is truly interesting about this incident.

The moment was replayed over and over again on countless newscasts. Since it was a Presidential speech to a joint session of Congress, the camera was focused on the President, with the Speaker of the House (who happened to be from the same party as the President) seated behind the President, visible in the same camera shot. Perhaps the most commented-on aspect of the video replay was the look on the face of the Speaker of the House -- more dramatic than the look on the face of the President.

The incident generated a sort of frenzy in the media, with much discussion. It was reported that there was a significant increase in donations to both the involved Congressman and his opponent in the next election. Eventually there were official congressional proceedings against the Congressman, and he received some sort of official reprimand.

The entire issue was very emotional, though there is room for debate about how much was genuine emotion and how much was contrived. The Congressman who shouted out "You lie!" MAY have been overcome with emotion at that moment, or he may have been planning his outburst for weeks. All that followed MAY have been motivated by genuine outrage, or it may have been the product of cold political calculation.

For me, the biggest revelation of the entire incident was that Congress has specific rules against saying "You lie!" to the President, as well as against making various similar statements. This raises a number of obvious questions regarding the subject of what, if anything, a Congressman is allowed to say or do if a President lies. Perhaps the rules are meant to acknowledge that the President of the United States is somehow incapable of lying.

For me, the most interesting aspect of all that followed the incident was that there was little public discussion of the question of whether or not the President had been lying just prior to the moment when the Congressman shouted the words. Certainly it can be argued that since Congress has rules against a Congressman shouting "You lie!" at the President, and the Congressman shouted "You lie!" at the President, he broke the rules, and any discussion of whether or not the President was lying is irrelevant. Still, I would have thought that if there is any sort of objectivity or intellectual curiosity in our society, the question would have been debated in the media.

I must acknowledge that I DID hear the question raised ONCE on a news program. A person defending the President stated that at the moment in question, the President was speaking purely hypothetically, about something that existed only in his own mind, and therefore the Congressman could not absolutely state that he was lying, since the President was not speaking about anything real. This defense is interesting, but problematic on various levels given the specifics of what he was saying, and also the follow-up actions on the part of his supporters.

I would also have enjoyed hearing some debate about whether Congress should continue to have rules against saying "You lie!" to the President. The question MUST have come up, but I never heard it raised. Most of the debate that I heard was with regard to what actions should be taken following the statement -- how much apologizing should be done, and to whom, and how much punishment should be meted out. Perhaps these questions were necessary, but I could not help viewing them as simply deliberate distractions from the questions that should have been addressed.

Television scheduling

Television is a complicated topic. While it is easy to attack “television” and its effect on society, there are many positive aspects to television -- but that’s not what I intend to write about.

Good or bad, television is currently a part of our society. It would be wise to acknowledge the importance of television in our society, and also to examine aspects such as scheduling, the importance of which I believe is largely overlooked. (I acknowledge that “importance” is a complicated topic, and to a certain extent in the eye of the beholder.)

For one thing, I suspect the differences television scheduling in different time zones have some marked effects on peoples day-to-day lives. Growing up in the Midwest, “prime-time” television was from seven to ten in the evening, and at ten came the local news. On the east coast, prime time is from eight to eleven, with the local news at eleven. It is difficult for me to believe this does not have a significant effect, causing people in the different regions to live according to a different schedule. Even people who never watch a moment of television are affected by the fact that OTHER people watch television, and watch it according to the networks’ schedule.

This is the time of year when programming executives most often feel compelled to change their schedules. The most fanfare is given to brand-new programs, but it is also a time when older programs are canceled or shifted to different time slots, often on different days. All of this has an effect on daily life, especially when dealing with exceptionally popular programs. Again, even people who never watch a moment of television are affected when millions of people who have been watching a program on one night of the week abruptly shift to watching it on another night of the week.

While many scheduling changes are made at the national network level, local programming executives also make life-altering changes, though these changes are even harder to document and study. I believe that when a local channel that has been broadcasting something like “Seinfeld” or “MASH” every weeknight at a certain time suddenly switches to broadcasting “Friends” or “Everybody Loves Raymond”, this also has appreciable effects on the day-to-day lives of people in the broadcasting area -- though without studying this phenomenon, I cannot say what these effects might be.

I am not ashamed to admit that I enjoy television. Among other things, I enjoy using television as a sort of clock or calendar, to mark distinct points in the day or week. My elderly mother is losing many of her cognitive abilities, but she still knows that at four o’clock on weekdays she will watch “Jeopardy”, but NOT on weekends.

Although I watch less television now than sometimes in the past, I continue to watch television late at night as I end my day and prepare for sleep. Most of the channels I favor late at night show the same programs every weeknight, so I can strive to finish my daily activities in time to watch “Star Trek” or “Jay Leno” or whatever. I am disappointed, sometimes severely, if I sit down to watch one of these “usual” late-night shows and find that for some reason it is not being broadcast (in particular, one channel often changes their regular late-night schedule to show sporting activities). And, just as my mother is disappointed by the lack of “Jeopardy” on weekends, I am disappointed by the absence of my “usual” late-night shows on weekends.

To be honest, I suppose I would prefer that the channels that show the same programming FIVE days a week would show it SEVEN days a week, but I realize that in general, they are not going to DO that. However, I remain puzzled by the fact that these channels consider late night Friday, and the early AM hours of Saturday, to be “weeknight”, while late night Sunday (and the early AM hours of Monday) are considered “weekend”. For most Americans, Friday night is part of “the weekend”. To be fair, Sunday night may also be considered part of “the weekend”, but the later part of Sunday is spent preparing for a weekday, as is the later part of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, while the later part of Friday is spent preparing for ... more of the weekend. As far as I am concerned, it makes much more sense, and would be much better, to have the “weeknight” programming late Sunday night and early Monday morning, and show the “weekend” programs late Friday and into Saturday morning. Perhaps the most controversial thing I have to say regarding this topic is that I truly believe that if the television programming executives were to make this change, we would live in a better, happier, more productive world.

I admit that various technical developments, such as the increase in the number of television “channels” from three to hundreds, recording capabilities such as VCRs and DVRs, and the ability to watch things “on-demand”, make these scheduling issues decrease in importance -- though they raise an entirely NEW set of issues for society, to be addressed in a future posting.

Truth is complicated.