American Killed During Protest in Egypt

photo/wusa9.com

Andrew Pochter, an American student who attended Kenyon College in Ohio, was stabbed to death Friday while photographing violent confrontations between foes and supporters of President Mohammed Morsi in Alexandria, Egypt. Pochter was serving as a volunteer teaching English to young children for the summer to help then learn another language, and, in turn, improve his Arabic.

Pochter previously studied in the region and developed a love for the culture, eventually planning to live and work there, according to part of a statement released by his family, who added, "Andrew was a wonderful young man looking for ways to share his talents while he learned."

He would have begun his junior year this fall and dreamed of bringing peace and understanding after he completed his studies to a region immersed in conflict. When someone who wants nothing more than to change the world for the better meets a violent end, the irony makes that crime all the worse. 

As I've written before, Americans don't belong in the midst of violence which they don't really understand. When a mob convenes, it is difficult to sort out friend from foe. As a result of Andrew's death, the State Department advises travelers to postpone all non-essential travel to the area.

Egypt's ancient wisdom and enlightenment has gone missing in the 21st Century, and I don't foresee any change soon.  Andrew Pochter's murder reflects the insanity that currently dominates Egypt and many other places in the Middle East. His family is now left to grieve a young man who could have made valuable contributions to a peace effort.

Read More

Edward Snowden's Flight of Fancy

photo/telegraph.co.uk

Anyone who hasn't followed the story of Edward's Snowden outing the National Security Agency for its use of a surveillance system, which tracked phone calls and e-mails should check the background information before reading further. From the moment the story broke, I doubted the veracity of Snowden's stated motivation for revealing classified information to the world. With each succeeding day, his actions have spoken much louder than his words to The Guardian: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things--I don't want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to support or live under." Really, Mr. Snowden?  Let's examine a few facts to see just how important living in an open society is to him.

If Snowden were so determined to live in a world with no secret collection of data, he used flawed logic in selecting the country to which he fled for safety.  Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, while known as a productive place to do business, is still part of a repressive regime that routinely intrudes on citizens' private lives. Perhaps he has forgotten about the massacre at Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 during which thousands unarmed citizens were killed, because he was so young then. China hasn't changed so much that it would be considered a bastion of freedom today. I assume Snowden is also unaware of the massive spying program China uses on the United States and some of its allies.

With the support of Julian Assange, Snowden left Hong Kong and flew to Russia, where, according to Vladimir Putin, he currently resides at the Moscow Airport Transit Zone, awaiting a flight to Ecuador to seek asylum. Wait!  Do readers find it ironic that he has chosen to trust yet another country known for its oppression of citizens that also uses an extensive system to spy on them?  Doesn't his behavior cast significant doubt on the purpose of his leaking classified information to the press?

His actions should serve as a wake-up call to all government agencies who allow contractors access to highly secret information.  The vetting process for contractors should be conducted by a company whose sole purpose is to do just that and has nothing to do with the hiring process.  Edward Snowden had no business working at the NSA, and his work record reflects no noteworthy accomplishments, which could have made a compelling case to hire him.

The United States has revoked his passport, so, he can't travel anywhere legally now.  Perhaps he will become the modern day "Man Without a Country," a fitting end to a misbegotten tale.

Read More

Danielle Bradbery Wins The Voice Season Four

nbc.com photo

The Voice coach Adam Levine accurately predicted Monday night who would win the show's fourth season Tuesday.  Danielle Bradbery, a 16-year-old newcomer from Texas, took the honors in a star-studded show that included performances by Cher in a rather strange costume, Hunter Hayes, Bruno Mars, Pitbull, Nelly and other well-known singers. 

This blogger thought perhaps Michelle Chamuel's rabid fans would pull of an upset, but I was wrong again.  Although the final three had solid fan bases, Bradbery had the purest voice with close-to-perfect pitch.  Given her lack of professional appearances, her natural ease on stage was all the more amazing. 

Blake Shelton's beaming face in the photo above tells a story all its own.  On each episode, he praised her talent and stage presence.  During the finale, he acknowledged her star quality and predicted Bradbery will soon be a household name as he gushed, "Danielle Bradbery is a gift to the music industry and definitely a gift to The Voice."

The Voice provides a unique venue for aspiring artists to showcase their talents and receive professional coaching to bring out their best.  As such, it offers a unique perspective on promoting singers without the drama ever-present in other talent shows.  This blogger will definitely tune in to season five next fall.

Read More

The Voice Final Three-Who Will Take the Prize?

buddytv.com

The Voice final 3 contestants Michelle Chamuel, Danielle Bradbery, and the Swon Brothers, pictured above from left to right, gave their final performances Monday night to determine the winner of season 4. Chamuel had a rocky start, but gained popularity under Usher's tutelage and surprised this blogger by making it to the finals. Bradbery, the youngest performer at 16, has won favorable reviews with her traditional country approach.   She performed live for the first time on the show has delivered her songs consistently.  The Swon Brothers obviously enjoy themselves on stage with animated execution peppered with smiles and grins.

Once the contest reaches this point, pundits have no idea of whom America will choose as the winner because so many variables exist.  Adam Levine did predict that Bradbery would win, and Shakira's cowboy hat indicated support for the country contestants, but the outcome depends on how much effort fans expend in supporting their favorites.  Blake Shelton has the best odds of coaching a winner, since two teams members made it to the finals. All three will wind up with contracts and runners up have outpaced previous winners, so all of them really win to some degree. 

Ham and Wry will "go out on a limb" in the belief that Michelle Chamuel's avid followers will  do what it takes for her to win.  Chamuel is not my personal favorite, but she has shown great progress in each successive airing.  If I were to choose whose performances bring smiles to my face every time, the Swon Brother win without fail.  Tune in Tuesday for the results.

Read More

Remembering the Dads of the 50's and 60's

photo from findagrave.com

Fifties and early sixties TV usually portrayed fathers as problem solvers and hard-working professionals charged with "bringing home the bacon."  Robert Young, pictured above, could seemingly do no wrong as Jim Anderson on Father Knows Best.  Jim had an answer for every question and no situation stumped him.  He worked his magic with an unflappable smile and charm that made everything turn out well in the end.  Somehow, though, just the title alone irked me as a young kid.  My life did not always include a happy ending.

Another TV staple presented Ozzie Nelson playing himself, well at least a reasonable imitation of himself, on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, along with his wife Harriet and sons David and Ricky.  Ozzie lacked the infallible judgment of Jim Anderson, and his type of father more closely resembled some of the dads that populated my hometown.  Frequently, his wife stepped in and saved the day, and that struck a familiar note in my experience.

Leave it to Beaver offered a view of life from the perspective of a young boy, Beaver Cleaver, played by Jerry Mathers.  Tony Dow played his older brother Wally with Hugh Beaumont as Ward Cleaver and Barbara Billingsley as his wife June.  This series, like The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, approximated a typical middle class family of that era.  Ward and June often collaborated on finding a solution to the dilemmas their children faced.

Although The Donna Reed Show featured an upper middle class family with a pediatrician dad, just the show's title alone reflects that "the times, they were a changing."  Reed's character Donna Stone offered a depiction of a strong, decisive woman involved in many activities outside of her home.  The family's monetary status allowed her to have help at home, and she didn't rely solely on her husband to handle difficult situations.

The real dad's of that era worked long hours and came home exhausted, just wanting to relax until they started the whole process again the next day.  My dad was no exception to that, but he always found time to play a few games before my bedtime.  He had high expectations for my achievements at school, and both my parents strongly urged me to prepare for college.  I only wish Dad had been around long enough to see more of my accomplishments as an adult. 

For all of the readers who watched those shows and are reminded of fond memories of their fathers, I close with the following wish:  Happy Father's Day to the dads of my youth.  None of you matched the perfection of Jim Anderson, and for that, I'm thankful.

Read More

To Everyone in the Service Business: Please Don't Call Me Dear



bing.com images

 

The straw on the proverbial camel's back was irretrievably broken earlier today during a conversation with a service person scheduling an appointment for a repair.   Throughout the call she called me "dear" rather than using my name or "ma'am," a habit this blogger finds offensive and condescending.  Dear is a term reserved for family members or a close circle of friends who know each other well and use it to show affection.

 

Get one thing straight, service personnel.   You wouldn't refer to a male patron as dear, so don't use it with females.  It crosses the line of business etiquette and enters the realm of social faux pas.  No shortage of appropriate terms exist, so practice using them. 

 

Those who train employees should take note of this admonition and emphasize a strict abolition of "dear" in the workplace.   When I hear that word from someone I don't know, it hits a raw nerve, and I'm tempted to call the offender "honey" or some other demeaning term in response, but I have thus far resisted the temptation.

 

Many of my friends and acquaintances have expressed the same irritation that I have described,  but we don't want to stoop to rude behavior to counter ignorance.  Recently, I started a new tactic of informing anyone who uses the dreaded term that I prefer my first name, Ms. plus my last name, or "ma'am" and tell them not to use "dear."  Some of the people have reacted as though I have offended them with the mere suggestion, while others have taken it in stride.

 

For those readers who agree, help me wipe out this example of intruding in personal space and maintaining polite communications with customers and clients.  Just say, "No!"

 

 

 

 



Read More

Cell Phone Usage and the Demise of Civility

bing.com

The photo above needs no explanation because everyone in this country has witnessed a similar scene.   Unfortunately, it symbolizes America's obsession with instant gratification and an increasing decline in face-to-face conversation.  This blogger finds it not only annoying, but also the height of rudeness, when anyone uses a cell phone at a social gathering in the midst of other attendees engaged in lively conversation with each other.  This particular brand of rudeness reveals a total lack of civility in a situation designed to promote interaction among all of the guests.

Another example of cell phone stupidity occurs when dining in a restaurant and people at neighboring tables or booths speak loudly on their phones to others as though no one else matters.  Here's a news flash for all the guilty parties.  I don't want to hear your conversation, so take it outside if it's vital for you to make the call during a meal.  That rule applies in all situations where strangers are subjected to others' personal or business communications.

Texting poses a more subtle form of rudeness.  Nothing frustrates me more than dealing with someone who is distracted by texting during dinner or a party or any other time the offender should be talking to others in the room. These clueless people feign attention, but actually have lost track of the discussion and have no idea what's going on around them.  I have witnessed many occasions where people sitting at the same table are texting each other rather than talking.  Ridiculous!  I am offended when I call someone to talk and that person is either texting or using the computer, because too many pregnant pauses are occurring during the call.  Such behavior is discourteous, impolite, and disrespectful.  Stop it!

Cell phones have proven valuable tools in emergencies, to stay in touch while traveling, and in taking and storing photos in the absence of a camera.  However, the world is not interested in minutiae, so please discern carefully which photos to post on FB or videos on YouTube.  These images take on a life of their own once they make it to the public domain, and many have faced unnecessary embarrassment by choosing unwisely. 

The next time you recharge your cell's batteries, leave the phone behind and have fun with a good friend or family member.  It works wonders for fostering solid relationships.
 

Read More

Condoleeza Rice Advocates Sending US Troops to Syria

usatoday.com

Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on Monday's CBS Evening News called for the President to send United States ground troops to Syria, because they are the only ones that can do the job.  Here we go again!  Condi must have conveniently forgotten the Iraq debacle which cast that country into chaos.  Democracynow.org reported on March 19, 2013 the cost of the Iraq War ten years later totals $2.2 trillion in US taxpayer money and amassed 189,000 in lives lost, including both civilian and military deaths from the US and Iraq.

America still has troops fighting in Afghanistan until the withdrawal begins next year.  I guess Condi believes we have an inexhaustible supply of military personnel and money to use in yet another "mission impossible."  Have you seen the number of wounded soldiers who have lost limbs and other parts of their bodies, Condi?  Who do you think they are?  The vast majority form the generation of parents raising kids that will decide our future.  We don't need any more military personnel in their teens and early to mid-twenties fighting in the Middle East.   If the Middle East in concerned about Bashar al-Assad and his supporters, let them take up arms against his regime. 

The United States is not, nor should it be, the world's police force.  Rice said the US is the only country that can do the job.  Au contraire, Condi.  Russia, China, UN forces--all of these options and more exist.  I am sick to death of the hawkish culture that has evolved around guns and munitions companies, and so are a majority of my contemporaries.  Battles fought on the ground hark back to the technology yesteryear.  If western countries have any hope of stemming the tide of dictators who think nothing of wiping out masses of their own countrymen, it will not happen on a battleground. 

Readers, if you agree, deluge Ms. Rice with messages stating your opinion.  Although she served as Secretary of State, she has little in the way of substantive accomplishments to qualify her as an expert in fighting a war successfully. 

Read More

Leonardo DiCaprio Captures the Essence of Gatsby

cineplex.com

The Great Gatsby opened to mixed critical reviews, but this blogger highly recommends seeing the movie, if for no other reason than Leonardo DiCaprio's mesmerizing performance as Jay Gatsby, the eponymous character shrouded in mystery.

The film depicts the lavish excesses of the nouveau riche in the 1920's. Although the extravagant representation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's description of Gatsby's decadent parties sometimes overshadows the novel's theme, DiCaprio never fails to bring the viewer back to the love story that drives his ambition and dominates his every action.  He loves another man's wife and will stop at nothing to convince her to leave her husband and marry him.

filmfilia.com

The narrator, Nick Carraway, tells the story as a flashback when he is in a sanatorium recovering from alcoholism.   His doctor suggests writing the story, when Carraway has difficulty articulating his memories aloud.  Tobey Maguire, as Carraway, performs his role with precision and artfully demonstrates how easily a person living during that time would succumb to the lure of alcohol and the wanton, degenerate lifestyle of the rich and famous.

filmfilia.com

The Great Gatsby offered a perfect platform for DiCaprio to showcase the range of his talents.  Some of my friends and I recently discussed the demise of quality actors like Cary Grant, who could move seamlessly from drama to comedy and not leave viewers feeling they had been betrayed.  See the movie for yourself  and witness the kind of performance too rare in a sea of silly sequels and films that fail to demonstrate something other than gratuitous violence or sex.  Thoughtful audiences can't help but draw a parallel with some of the drawbacks of twentieth century living.

 

 

 

Read More