The first installment of the fruit of the vine is safely housed at the foot of the staircase while the coffee perks just loudly enough to know that the power is on. There's no no haze skimming the surface of the lake this morning and it's just early enough that the sun is still below the eastern horizon. Just as most mornings, a breeze is tickling the early autumn foliage enough to prompt a gentle dance, although this morning while the water surface is no mirror, yesterday's baby whitecaps are not evident today and a hawk is surveying the distant shore lazily yet purposefully.
Soon, after light morning nourishment, we will take to the road for a non-vineyard trip to the north where an unusual, yet growing organization was born. While it is a fascinating cult, as are all other organized religions, that began in the early 19th century and (by their own account) numbers over 6 million members in the United States.
One unique element of the group is a special garment which takes the place of
regular underwear. Members begin wearing it during their first visit to
their temple, where they receive individual instruction on how the
garment should be worn and cared for, and at which time, they undergo a special ceremony.
(from Liberty by Garrison Keillor)
". . . And at the very next Committee meeting, Viola Tors lit into him and said, "Why did CNN not identify our town? Nobody said 'Lake Wobegon.' No name on the screen. Who dropped the ball there? And why did they not refer to Delivery Day? And why was the four-minute silence completely overlooked?"
She looked straight at Clint as she said it. He replied that he was not the TV director and that probably they didn't call it Delivery Day because It's take too long to explain about the bowling balls falling from the sky like artillery shells and in the end people wouldn't believe it anyway so what's the point? She just harrumphed and said that he ought to listen to his own speech about taking care of details. That was Viola. A killjoy. She had a terrier who was just like her, a headache of a dog who liked to hector other dogs. Every yard was Booji's territory and he bristled at the very existence of other dogs. He was a barker from the word go. Like him, Viola had discovered the usefulness of belligerence. In this town, people tend to back down if you bristle at them. They don't want to tussle.
She tapped a pencil on her big front teeth and shook her little curly head and rolled her blue eyes as if he were the dumbest boy in the third grade. . . "
Everyone has been, at one time or another, out in public in a place such as the mall, a concert or show, the grocery store, a public park or even (if you're so inclined) church, and have seen a person that so closely resembles someone you know, that you're tempted to walk directly over to them and inform them of this remarkable phenomenon. But you don't. An that's probably just as well. Because for all the joy and amusement it brings to you to have had the keen observational skills to detect this wonderful resemblance, the act of sharing it with them actually brings them nothing. I don't, and I hope it's because I have never done it, recall ever having confronted a perceptive double with such edifying news. But it just so happens that as I write, in a public eating area, a lady at another table has an uncanny resemblance to an aunt of mine, who by the way, has been deceased for several years now. And maybe it's only her profile from the left but so much about her is all Aunt Helen. But, as I said, for all the joy and amusement it brings to you to have had the keen observational skills to detect this wonderful resemblance, the act of sharing it with them actually brings them nothing. It's a remarkable likeness. Excuse me . . .
No! I didn't actually go over to her. Now there's another guy with a librarian-type lady, spouting off about spiritual, spirituality, share, sharing. . . I keep hearing these words. She looks enthralled though.
The local newspaper's weekend special section mentioned the Baltimore Orioles and how, just like the last two years, they will NOT win the world series. Now I'm no sports fan for sure. But I know how I feel about my efforts, dedication, fortune (or lack thereof) and if this reporter only considered the dismal condition of the Baltimore Orioles BEFORE THAT, he/she should well give credit to the current lineup/management for being contenders these past three seasons. It's just so easy to criticize. As they say, "Those who can do. Those who can't become critics."
'Intentional' winemaking can be traced back to the Neolithic period (8500-4000BCE) when communities of the ancient Near East and Egypt resulted from the domestication of plants and animals. This meant the nomadic life was no longer a necessity. A 'cuisine' emerged during this time and food processing techniques developed such as fermentation, soaking, heating and spicing. Foods like bread, beer, meat dishes and grain entrees had their origins at this time. With new foods, new vessels for the preparation, storage and service made their appearance with clay being the material of choice from which to make them. Dating the 'origin' of wine to the period resulted from the discovery of a yellowish reside in a jar found at the site of Hajji Firuz Tepe in the northern Zagros Mountains of Iran in an earthen floor in a kitchen (of sorts) of a Neloithic mudbrick building dated about 5400-5000BCE.
(Source- http://www.penn.museum/sites/wine/wineneolithic.html)
(from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-reich-free-market-20130924,0,4661170.story Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. His new film, "Inequality for All," will be out September 27. He blogs at http://www.robertreich.org)
". . . One of the most deceptive ideas continuously sounded by the right (and its fathomless think tanks and media outlets) is that the "free market" is natural and inevitable, existing outside and beyond government.
So whatever inequality or insecurity it generates is beyond our control. And whatever ways we might seek to reduce inequality or insecurity — to make the economy work for us — are unwarranted constraints on the market's freedom and will inevitably go wrong.
By this view, if some people aren't paid enough to live on, the market has determined they aren't worth enough. If others rake in billions, they must be worth it. If millions of Americans remain unemployed or their paychecks are shrinking or they work two or three part-time jobs with no idea what they'll earn next month or next week, that's too bad; it's just the outcome of the market.
According to this logic, government shouldn't intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work, regulations on business, or anything else, because the "free market" knows best.
In reality, the "free market" is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?); (2) on what terms (equal access to the Internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections?); (3) under what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?); (4) what's private and what's public (police? roads? clean air and water? health care? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes? user fees? individual pricing?). And so on.
These rules don't exist in nature; they are human creations. Governments don't "intrude" on free markets; governments organize and maintain them. Markets aren't "free" of rules; the rules define them. Without such rules, we're back to social Darwinism, where only the toughest and biggest survive.
The interesting question is what the rules should aim to achieve. They can be designed to maximize efficiency (given the current distribution of resources), or growth (depending on what we're willing to sacrifice to obtain that growth), or fairness (depending on our ideas about a decent society). Or some combination of all three — which aren't necessarily in competition with one another. Evidence suggests, for example, that if prosperity were more widely shared, we'd have faster growth.
The rules might even be designed to entrench and enhance the wealth of a few at the top, and keep almost everyone else comparatively poor and economically insecure.
Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules and their major purpose? If our democracy were working as it should, presumably our elected representatives, agency heads and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be. The economy would be working for us.
Instead, the rules are now made mostly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads and even the courts (and the lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is determining the rules of the game.
Not incidentally, these are the same people who want you and most others to believe in the fiction of an immutable "free market."
As I emphasize in "Inequality for All" — a new film out this week in which I explain the savage inequalities and insecurities now undermining our economy and democracy — we can make the economy work for us rather than for only a few at the top. But in order to change the rules, we must exert the power that is supposed to be ours. . . "
As a TV-watching kid, I loved commercials. At least SOME commercials. Remember "I can't believe I ate the whole thing. . . You ate it Ralph!"? Not so much as a 'hardly-watch-any-TV' adult. In these days of cable television, Netflix and bluerays, not only do commercials turn me off, I refuse to even watch conventional, network (or local for that matter) television.
Do I want a medal? (Or just a chest on which to pin it?) Naw! Just musing about how popular entertainment and I, myself have changed.
As I write, commercial AM radio (yes Virginia, there STILL is an AM radio) is chattering in the background. One commercial, in particular, annoys me. It's one for the newest casino in the area and runs no risk of enticing me to patronize them at all. The the appeal to the base desire for attention, not to mention an easy fortune procured by gambling, is a fascinating psychological ploy.
"Everywhere you look there’s endless excitement and the kind of thrills you just don’t find anywhere else; like over 1,000 Vegas-style slot machines, the hottest Table Games around, dining that always gets two forks up and the kind of red carpet service you would expect in Hollywood."
I've been to Hollywood. Believe me, I am not the kind of person that gets 'red carpet service' let alone 'cheap, throw-rug' service in Hollywood. Just the regular-Joe-schmuck service that I (and most other regular people) get anywhere else.
It's good to dream. It's certainly good to possess a certain self-esteem. But don't confuse dreaming or self-esteem with crass commercialism. I think the lesson here is, quite simply and obviously, 'don't think that you won't lose money gambling just because you're pretending that you're a movie star.'
Countless books, websites, magazines, classes, seminars, clubs, associations, and organizations exist (Google provides about 15,100,000 results to a search for the word 'Songwriting' alone) to "assist" the struggling songwriter.
Should be easy to become instantly successful. Right???
As one intimately involved in such creative endeavors as both a participant and a spectator, I have decided that I, too, will join the ranks of the faux academics and offer my services based upon the credentials earned in my vast 'professional' and my amateur experience.
What makes my assistance particularly valuable is the price. It is being offered to you, RIGHT NOW, possibly for a limited time (that is, unless I decide to repeat myself yet AGAIN in the future) only. . . and that price is . . .
. . . NOTHING! It is FREE!!!
OK. Here goes. When performing your original material, irrespective of audience size, disposition or demographics, venue, sound systems, backing band or lack thereof, compensation or lack thereof . . . irrespective of all of that. . . Do NOT (I repeat) do not (no matter how funny, witty, clever or intelligent you are [or THINK you are], do not, (did I say DO NOT??). . .
