- - - WELCOME TO MY MIND - - -

Monday, March 27, 2006

Spring Can Hang You Up

Spring is here, there's no mistaking,
Robins building nests from coast to coast.
My heart tries to sing
    so they won't hear it breaking.
Spring can really hang you up the most!

The above is a verse excerpted from "Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most"; a great song from the album "Where is Love" by Irene Kral. This vocal standard has also been covered by the likes of Blossom Deary, Marian McPartland, Betty Carter, Ella Fitzgerald, and even Bette Midler. The song speaks to love gone astray, the pain of which is only exacerbated by the burgeoning spring.

In my case, it's not about love; but the sentiment is the same. I just can't seem to shake these winter doldrums. And those damn chirping birds only make it worse. hrmpf!

Perhaps I need to go buy a "new hat". Actually I've never worn a hat. I use that expression to symbolize any purchase made for the singular intention of making me feel good. It could range from an inexpensive gold-plated trinket to an automobile. Whatever it takes; whatever catches my fancy.

No, I've never purchased a car, but such a high-ticket item would not be inconceivable. However, it's unlikely to ever be a car, since I don't even like to drive. I know how, and I have a license that I continually renew. But I've never had the desire to own an automobile. Beside I really don't have the temperament to drive in today's traffic -- talk about your "road rage".

I don't even feel like shopping. Actually I hate shopping. I love buying stuff, but I hate the stores and dealing with the gross apathy and incompetency up with which you have to put. Okay, okay! ...that you have to put up with. (Let the damn preposition dangle.) Anyway, the internet takes care of all that. In fact, I make 90% of my purchases online ...anything except for clothing, which you have to try on first.

My last "new hat" turned out to be the very computer on which I'm writing this. I already had two working computers (one Mac and one PC) so I really didn't need a new one, but I liked the look of Apple's iBook ...all white and shiny, and gave in to the impulse. The purchase succeeded in lifting my spirits. So, what to buy, what to buy?

To tide me over until I decide on the right "chapeau", I bought some new music. I noticed that several of Irene Kral's albums that were previously unavailable are now listed online so I ordered "Kral Space", "Just For Now", "Live", and "Gentle Rain". Some were special orders, so they may still end up being unavailable. In the process, I discovered yet another Van Morrison CD of which I was unaware, "What's Wrong With This Picture". I added that to the list. He's so prolific, it's hard keep up. I'd just recently received his "Magic Time", which was actually released last year, but I only just happened upon it. It does not disappoint.

BTW, the reason we, (I and the general public), are unaware of many of his releases is because he doesn't receive any air play. This is the result of his ongoing feud with the record industry, a topic he covers in a lot of his music.

Quote of the Week: "What a man needs is someone to love. If he can't have that, then give him hope. If he can't have that, then give him something to do."
-- All non-relevant comments will be (have been) deleted!

4 Comment(s):



Anonymous Anonymous said...

My last new hat was signing myself up to go to this pottery studio. It's a new hat that renews itself weekly and it works. Makes me feel good.

26 March, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

Schaumi, your response to my last comment (on your blog) gave me an idea for that "new hat". This time around, I think I'm gonna do something to make someone else feel good ... and lift my own spirits in the process.

27 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a breath of fresh air! i have been meandering aimlessly on blogger to find a good read and now i have found one! thank you!

01 April, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

You are very welcome, Meander.
Thanks for the kinds words.

01 April, 2006  
 

Monday, March 20, 2006

Roe v Wade v Paternity

Sure, babies are adorable. But not everybody wants one. There's often a great deal of contention between the co-creators of the would-be baby as to whether or not to have it. Here's where we get into the area of Roe v Wade. This "abortion" question is a hot issues in both the religious and political arenas. Without renewing the debate here, let's just, for the sake of argument, except "a woman's right to choose" as a given.

From there, I look at several situations:

Best case scenario: Both the mother and the father want the baby and both will contribute to the raising and the welfare of the child. This scenario would also include the mutual decision to terminate the pregnancy, or have the baby and then place it up for adoption ...although "best case" seems an inaproprate description for these circumstances.

Next case scenario: The mother wants the baby and decides to singularly raise the child. In this case the mother may tell the father but he doesn't want the child, or the mother may not even inform the father of the pregnancy. In either case, she assume complete responsibility. Although there are those who will argue that a single-parent home is somehow deficient, (Quayle v Brown), there is much evidence to the contrary.

Bad case scenario: The father wants the child but the mother doesn't, and since it is her right, she opts to terminate the pregnancy. Although I think this is unfair to the father, there are no other options. You can't force [her] to endure the pregnancy against her wishes ...even if the intent were to relinquish the child at birth.

*Overlooked scenario: I modified this post (3/22/06*) to include the situation where the mother carries the child to term and then places it up for adoption without having notified the father of the pregnancy or the adoption. Myriad cases of adoption have been overturned because the father's rights had been circumvented.

New case scenario: The father doesn't want the child, but the mother does and decides to have it, and then, forces the father (under current laws) to provide child support. The argument here is that if the [agreed] intention was not to conceive, the mother, (if she does decide to keep the child), should not be able to force the father into this alliance.

See the "news article" about the court case surrounding this very question. The article is posted in the BBC News (Int'l version), however, if that link has somehow expired, you can view "my copy" of the original article.

I agree with the argument that a man should have the right not to be a father, but on the other hand, I do feel that if he does father a child, he should [at the very least] support it. So what are his options?

Some say he should have [had] a vasectomy, which is allegedly reversible. But you're dealing with delicate microsurgery and why would one take such a chance unless it was intended to be permanent. Others simply say to abstain. Sure, that's right up there with "just say no" and "let them eat cake". Think of all the problems in the world that would be eliminated, (or wouldn't exist in the first place), if "abstention" were truly a viably option.

So what rights does the father have?

Perhaps as self protection they both should sign a sort of prenup ...or in this case, call it a precoit. This precoital agreement would clearly state that if, despite precautions, a pregnancy did result, the father would be faultless, and the mother, could at her discretion, terminate the pregnancy. However if she should decide to have the baby, she would assume complete responsibility ...and the father would relinquish all rights.

Quote of the Week: "It's easier to stay out than to get out."
-- All non-relevant comments will be (have been) deleted!

5 Comment(s):



Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll be back later sometime to comment more inteligently (hopefully). I am quite braindead now.

22 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, I'm prochoice, however, I realized a long time ago that abortion would probably never be a choice for me unless my life was in danger, or in the case of rape.
2nd: I'm grateful to find myself in a bestcase scenario. We both wanted our children.
3rd: I think the bad case scenario is heartbreaking where the father wants the child and the mother doesn't. It's not fair to the father. However much I think that father should have the child, the woman can't and shouldn't be forced.
4th: overlooked scenario where the father is forced to pay child support even though he doesn't want it. Well, I guess I am of the commonly held opionion that it took two to tango, so therefore, fork out the money, bud...
(However, personally, I'd rather raise a child on my own than have a dad that didn't want the child to intervene in my childrearing decisions just because he is doling out bucks).
Lastly, when it comes to having an unwanted pregnancy there is no such thing as a faultless participant even if a precoital agreement should
state that the guy is faultless should a pregnancy occur despite precautions. The woman would be faultless too in that case, but
she has no choice, she's stuck with the hard decisions....abortion, adoption, or single parenting (and, bubba, if she needs your money for childrearing support...) well, this could be endless...

26 March, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

Glad you revived your brain :)

We seem to be in agreement on most of these points. That "New Case" scenario, however, is a tricky one. Okay, maybe a no-fault agreement is not a great idea. But you have to admit, where Row v Wade gives a woman control over her own body, it also gives her all the control over the guy's life (regarding paternity), and that's unfair. That's what this guy (and the organization behind him) went to court about ...although he doesn't really expect to win.

Row v Wade, unfortunately, is not carved in stone, and (if certain someones get their "right" way) it could be repealed. In that case, this would all be moot.

26 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

These certain someone's worry me too.

26 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I keep getting this image of a lawyer in a pin-stripe suit popping out from under the bed with a 237 page precoit agreement..."Hold that thought, just initial each page and sign the last one. You'll need witnesses, of course".

I think the big issue is one of commitment - commitment of time and resources - that largely falls on the woman. If a casual fling, and whatever you think of them they happen, results in a pregnancy it is a much larger 'life-issue' for the woman than the man.

That is why I argue that the woman needs to be the one who 'knows' contraception is in place, whatever its form.

As to the issue of maintenance, come the baby, I pretty much agree with what has been said already.

06 May, 2006  
 

Monday, March 13, 2006

Remembering Bernie

Bernie was crude, vulgar, loud, obnoxious, sure to embarrass you in public, and an all-around pain in the ass ....and oh, how I miss him.

Bernie died in 1989 and it was like a part of me died with him. Before I met him, I'd never had a friend like that, and never since.

We first met in Atlantic City where I'd always lived and Bernie had come (from Philadelphia) to work for the summer. It was 1967 and we were all trying to get into this bar using our fake IDs, the descriptions on which in no way matched how we actually looked. But it was dark, and the bouncer didn't really care, so we all got in. It was a small group of friends and, when Bernie and I were introduced, we took an immediate dislike toward each other. He was so not like me, and represented all the things I didn't like in a person. He felt similarly. So, eventually, we became fast friends.

I remember once on a New York subway, we got into this laughing thing ...over something insignificant and silly. But we just couldn't stop laughing. All we had to do was glance at each other and it would start up again. It got so bad, we had to get off the subway and walk home, doubled over in laughter all the way. It was this sense of lightness that [he] brought to my life. With Bernie around, it was impossible for me to take myself seriously. Or if I did, he'd immediately put a stop to it. I guess he was my Peter Pan. After he was gone, I did seem to get much older very fast.

So, what sparked this flash of reminiscence? There was this program ...don't really remember what it was or even what it was about ...that showed a montage of old 70s commercials. One clip was the old 7-Up "un-cola nut" ad featuring Geoffrey Holder saying the words, "Juicier too, I'd say". But with his thick Trinidadian accent, it came out sounding like "Juicy Twotsy". "What the hell is he saying?", Bernie had asked. I explained, mouthing the words slowly, but all Bernie's brain would hear was juicy twotsy. We'd howl with laughter every time we'd drink 7-Up. This type of silliness was the kind of thing only [he] could make me appreciate.

He also had this thing where he couldn't pronounce the word "filthy". Similar to a English cockney brogue, he would either say "filfy" or "thilthy". His speech was peppered with many such unique expressions that were classic "Bernie". And then, there was the profanity! In a simple sentence of twelve or so words, four or five of them would be expletives. He was so totally irreverent and uncultured ...and the closest friend I ever had.

Unfortunately, those major differences between us did pose a problem in later life. I was "growing up" and he refused to do so. He never did get his act together. My "having" and his "not having" was always there, like a "white elephant" in the room. Sure, I'd always agree to that "loan?", but he always resented me for his having to ask ...and I him for the asking.

Our last encounter ended in a big fight over my not wanting him to accompany me the symphony. You see, I'd already made plans to go with some friends, and [he'd] just breezed into town from who knows where and shown up at my door with no advanced notice ...as was his habit. And no, you did not want to take Bernie to the S.F. Symphony. He was highly insulted. "Who the hell do you think you are?" He left and went back home to Philly, (where he'd returned to live with his Mom). I never heard from him again.

When his Mom called to tell me he'd died, I felt so terribly bad about how we'd left things, how I couldn't take back those last words or rewrite that last scenario. I don't really know if he knew just how much he meant to me.

Quote of the Week: "Happiness is not so much something you experience as it is something you remember."
-- All non-relevant comments will be (have been) deleted!

4 Comment(s):



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahhh,

The sorrow of an unresolved fight and the sorrow of loosing the person you fought with.
That is a tough lesson to learn. I know, because the day before my brother unexpectatly passed away 10 years ago, we had a major fight. We would have eventually made up, like we usually did... but fate wasn't on our side.

I focus on the positve memories as you seem to be doing with your friend.

I think that is what counts, focusing on the positive.

15 March, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

Yes, I agree.

It's funny though, I not only focus on the positive, those seem to be the strongest memories. All that other stuff seems so insignificant.

And, as with your brother, we would've eventually gotten past it were it not for fate.

15 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bernie sounds like my friend, Steve, who passed away many years ago. Steve and I spent our entire friendship engaged in an argument about something. I was slightly bitter because he was the pretty one who always got the white boys to take care of him, but I was the smart one who was usually right about EVERYTHING. He hated that.

One of the very last times we were together was in Atlantic City at a nasty little place called Studio 6... Ahh the good old days. I haven't thought about those days in a long time. Thanks for bringing it all back.

20 March, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

I got a warm fruzzy chuckle when I read the part about "being right".

I, too, always thought I was right ...and usually I was. Bernie both admired and hated me for that.

I bet you miss those arguments :)

20 March, 2006  
 

Monday, March 06, 2006

Giving The Keys To The Fox

When I consider the metaphor of giving the fox the keys to the hen house, what immediately comes to mind is this ludicrous proposal of allowing the UAE (United Arab Emirates) control over our ports.

In this time of heightened security procedures, with all the attempts to circumvent the constitution and trample on the personal liberties of U.S. citizens, it seems very "twilight zone-ish" that [we'd] be seriously considering turning over control of our ports of entry to the UAE. Sure, not all Arabs are responsible for the terrorists attacks around the world, and I don't mean to suggest that the UAE is not ethical and trustworthy, but really...

Yeah, yeah! I know it's all about our god, "commerce" ...and worshipping [it] takes precedent over all else, even though those in power profess otherwise. It's one thing to say it's not economically feasible to inspect each piece of cargo that comes into the U.S. It's another to put that responsibility directly into the hands of the foreign powers who, even though not directly involved, share the home soil and basic beliefs and who knows what other affiliations with those who'd relish the opportunity to completely annihilate the U.S. and all of its inhabitants.

I've been monitoring [many] of the reports covering this proposal, and looking at the men making statements to the effect that "the UAE has been thoroughly scrutinized and that there's nothing irregular about the deal". The point being that we as ordinary people don't know the intricacies of how these ports work and that's why we're all being so paranoid. If we did [know], we'd understand that there is nothing irregular about this kind of thing. We should just trust those "in the know" to handled things properly ...yeah, right! And of course the 100 millions ducats given to the Katrina "relief effort" has no baring on this transaction.

Sorry, but if it looks like a Trojan horse, and it's parked at the gates of your city like a Trojan horse, than it may very well be a Trojan horse.

This is very reminiscent of the hearings when the cigarette company CEOs put on their best [sincere] faces and stated that cigarettes were definitely not addictive. All you had to do was look at the speaker to know that even he, himself, was unconvinced of what he was saying ... if not outright lying. It's like watching "Dubya" making one of his speeches. How do you know he's lying? 'Cuz his lips are moving. BTW, I love the way his claim ...that [they] didn't anticipate the level of destruction caused by hurricane Katrina... has come back to bite him in the ass.

And speaking of "Dubya"... All this isn't helping his case around here. San Francisco already is not a Bush-friendly town, which is probably why he's never come here. No, not ever. San Francisco is the only city among the nation's 25 largest that Bush has not visited during his presidency.
There's even been some talk ...at the grass roots level... of renaming our "Bush Street" to something else, as a political statement of sorts. This started me thinking, "But what about the person for whom the street was originally named? Wouldn't it be a disservice to [him] to un-name the street?"

I did some research to find out who, in fact, was the source of the street's name. I came across several sites that listed San Francisco street names and their sources. However, the data was incomplete, with myriad typographical errors and lots of contradictory and incorrect data. In my usual obsessive-compulsive manner, I re-vamped the list. It's now become an ongoing project to verify the information and fill in the missing streets ...as many as I can. Yes, a lot of the data is blatantly plagiarized [from the other lists I found], but that's all right. I'm not publishing this on any website; it's merely for my own edification. However, for the purpose of this post, I'm offering this [temporary] "link" ...for anyone who's interested.

Quote of the Week: "Be wary of the man who encourages an action in which he himself incurs no risk."
-- All non-relevant comments will be (have been) deleted!

3 Comment(s):



Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm with you on this one. This situation is like the proverbial Trojan Horse. Plus the Bush family has always had dealings with the Saudi Arabians going back to the 70's which have always benefited them. I know they are different countries, but still.
Dubai seems perhaps an interesting place to visit (March 8 - March 10
Dubai International Jazz Festival International Jazz Festival featuring many acclaimed artists like Diane Schuur, Kool & The Gang
Venue:Dubai Media City Amphitheatre), but the thought of them managing our ports does not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling.

05 March, 2006  
 


Blogger gieau_sf said...

Yeah, I read about the family Bush's connections with the Saudis. Perhaps the foxes already have the keys.

I really love Diane Schuur, although I don't think I'd risk going to Dubai to see her :)

05 March, 2006  
 


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think I'd risk going to Dubai either even though it is a tourist mecca for many Europeans for some reason. Might be because I am older.
I did backpack into Morocco, another Muslim country, in my 20's, 3 weeks after Reagan bombed the neighboring country of Libya. I was braver then.

05 March, 2006