Lately, I've taken to getting myself a treat when I'm in the supermarket. Since I'm with the little one all the time, and don't want to model bad habits (and being a woman I am genetically predisposed to be "watching my weight," no matter what), I get a small container of fresh cut fruit. Watermelon, cantaloupe, honeydew, red grapes, pineapple, and a few stray pieces of mango.
When we get home, and unload the bags, Cheese Eater and I sit down at the table and share our little feast. Some places sell it with two toothpicks enclosed, which greatly enhances our sharing. Another place has no toothpicks at all, but I usually can scrounge some up at home.
I think she starts with the watermelon, grapes and cantaloupe. I tend to head straight for the pineapple. Honestly, it all tastes so good, because it's sitting in the juices of it's neighbor, and it's just a refreshing, fruity, sweet, juicy snack.
Well, today the store I went to, the one with two toothpicks, had no mixed fruit bowl, only a four sectional container without grapes or mango. The honeydew was tasteless, the cantaloupe tasted like it's October, and the watermelon, though not the taste explosion I would find in the summer, was good but grainy.
That leaves the pineapple. The never yet disappointing pineapple. Soft and juicy and sweet and perfect. I have a good mind to skip the mixed fruit and just get a container of pineapple. I know I should just buy a pineapple and cut it myself, but then it loses treat status.
But here's the dilemma. Do I risk disappointment by buying just the pineapple taking a chance that it won't be as good,or may have an "off day," or do I stick with the mixed fruit in which the pineapple can continue to shine and excite my taste buds?
Do I settle for so much mediocrity to enhance excellence, or do I risk potential disappointment in focusing solely on the excellence, the benefits of which are so much greater on it's own?
Wait, are we still talking about fruit?
Friday, October 30, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Who Do You Believe?
I am not a fan of the Government of Iraq. I do not trust their leader or their system of spiritual leaders who will turn events to make the West look bad to their citizens at every turn.
That said, are there really people choosing the IRAQ IRAN border as a vacation spot? Even if they are based or living in the middle East, I'd think Dubai would have to be a lot more fun then Iraq.
Hey, anyone wanna go to Downtown Detroit on October 30th, after dark?
How about Compton, dressed in the wrong colors?
I've heard Kabul is lovely this time of year!!!
That said, are there really people choosing the IRAQ IRAN border as a vacation spot? Even if they are based or living in the middle East, I'd think Dubai would have to be a lot more fun then Iraq.
Hey, anyone wanna go to Downtown Detroit on October 30th, after dark?
How about Compton, dressed in the wrong colors?
I've heard Kabul is lovely this time of year!!!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Just Wait...
Generally speaking when people around you discuss an issue, it isn't always pertinent to your life...yet. You can glean a lot from watching and listening as your friends and family go through different milestones in their lives. Sometimes, on the outside looking in, you can make assessments and judgments in a general global way (very much NOT specific to your friends and family...)disagree with the way the majority of people navigate it, and be told "Just wait until you're in it."
I think that's a mistake. Not that the judgment one makes from a far should be something one never steps away from, but if you think something through rationally, and come to a conclusion that a certain standard is the one you want for your life, I think you have a better chance of sticking to your guns. Now, it's entirely possible that once in a situation you'll see your guns should be abandoned, but I'd say, in general, when dealing with moral issues, or ethical issues, or just ways you want you and your family to conduct your lives, sticking to a high standard is the way to go.
So I wonder if the comment "Just wait until you're in it," is just a form of giving up, a way to say, "yeah, I thought that way too, but I've been beaten down." If that's the case with me, then at least I'll have gone into things trying to buck the system, and live the way I think I should live, instead of letting society and situations pre-determine how I will behave or react.
I can certainly be less vocal about it, but if no one is willing to change anything, then nothing will ever change.
I think that's a mistake. Not that the judgment one makes from a far should be something one never steps away from, but if you think something through rationally, and come to a conclusion that a certain standard is the one you want for your life, I think you have a better chance of sticking to your guns. Now, it's entirely possible that once in a situation you'll see your guns should be abandoned, but I'd say, in general, when dealing with moral issues, or ethical issues, or just ways you want you and your family to conduct your lives, sticking to a high standard is the way to go.
So I wonder if the comment "Just wait until you're in it," is just a form of giving up, a way to say, "yeah, I thought that way too, but I've been beaten down." If that's the case with me, then at least I'll have gone into things trying to buck the system, and live the way I think I should live, instead of letting society and situations pre-determine how I will behave or react.
I can certainly be less vocal about it, but if no one is willing to change anything, then nothing will ever change.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
My Pet Peeve
Recently, one of my kids teachers got engaged. Mazel Tov, Yaaay!
I wonder if she will finish out the year. Generally in these situations, the guy is learning, and he certainly can't be expected to learn anywhere other than where he wants to learn, despite the fact that this girl should have a responsibility to the kids, the school, and the parents who now have to deal with the school scrambling to find a replacement, at a time when most people already have jobs.
I think it's worse in the younger grades, when the kids finally get used to a teacher, and YANK! She's gone, and now there's someone new to acclimate to, and learn how to deal with, and get to know all over again.
I'm curious why no one in the school system thinks this is important, and none of the Rebbeim in the kollelim think the greater community should be respected enough to either have the woman commute, or just learn elsewhere until she is finish her RESPONSIBILTY.
I can't even convey (even if I use all CAPS!) how upset this makes me, and that everyone just lets it happen as if becoming a teacher is no greater responsibility or commitment or job than any other. Because that's what it boils down to I guess. It must be that it's just a job. The fact that often people's future rest upon how good you are at it, or that you stick it out? I guess they don't teach that in Seminary.
I wonder if she will finish out the year. Generally in these situations, the guy is learning, and he certainly can't be expected to learn anywhere other than where he wants to learn, despite the fact that this girl should have a responsibility to the kids, the school, and the parents who now have to deal with the school scrambling to find a replacement, at a time when most people already have jobs.
I think it's worse in the younger grades, when the kids finally get used to a teacher, and YANK! She's gone, and now there's someone new to acclimate to, and learn how to deal with, and get to know all over again.
I'm curious why no one in the school system thinks this is important, and none of the Rebbeim in the kollelim think the greater community should be respected enough to either have the woman commute, or just learn elsewhere until she is finish her RESPONSIBILTY.
I can't even convey (even if I use all CAPS!) how upset this makes me, and that everyone just lets it happen as if becoming a teacher is no greater responsibility or commitment or job than any other. Because that's what it boils down to I guess. It must be that it's just a job. The fact that often people's future rest upon how good you are at it, or that you stick it out? I guess they don't teach that in Seminary.
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Bride Wore Red Ink
Conde' Nast Publications, the magazine giant which publishes such well-recognized titles as "Vogue," "Vanity Fair," "GQ" and "The New Yorker," has announced that it is closing "Gourmet," "Modern Bride" and "Elegant Bride," as part of a program aimed at cutting costs.
Like most magazine publishers, Conde' Nast has seen a sharp decline in advertising revenue amidst the current economic downturn.
The closing of the three magazines will result in the layoff of about 180 people. It will also give me back six hours of my week, and leave a huge void in my reading portfolio.
Seriously, the next time you're at a wedding, and the bride is old-fashioned and frumpy, and the food is terrible, just blame the economy.
Like most magazine publishers, Conde' Nast has seen a sharp decline in advertising revenue amidst the current economic downturn.
The closing of the three magazines will result in the layoff of about 180 people. It will also give me back six hours of my week, and leave a huge void in my reading portfolio.
Seriously, the next time you're at a wedding, and the bride is old-fashioned and frumpy, and the food is terrible, just blame the economy.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
You Want Me To Go in Where???
After many, many years, and a new age for me, with the teenage girls and the necessary clothes shopping that is part and parcel of their lives, I returned to Loehmann's. Aaaah, Loehmann's, a store that brings back memories of tests and homework.
Not much of a shopper myself (God's sense of humor I guess, blessing me with 6 girls), and even less of a studier, the only time I was really amenable to going shopping was when I needed a good way to avoid sitting and doing my schoolwork. Often those attempts at buying me clothes meant a trip to Loehmann's, which always tempered my not studying enthusiasm, especially during bathing suit season.
You see, as successful as we were at Loehmann's there was always the dreaded dressing room. The dressing room was just one big room with mirrors covering all the walls and hooks at various intervals, and a low bench running the length of the wall to put your things down. I hated this. The Back Room, which had more expensive clothing had real dressing rooms, you know with doors and privacy and all that, so I got smart and would always take one item from there so I didn't have to use the communal room.
Even though my young ladies FREAK if they are in a dressing room and the curtain or door opens the slightest bit while they are in the process of trying on new things, I decided to take them to Loehmann's anyway.
Plus, a long time ago I heard the Loehmann's put in real dressing rooms, private stalls with doors, and I knew that somewhere in the back of my mind, but just to be safe, as we approached the area laden with clothes for our inspection, I jokingly said to the girls, you know the dressing room might be just one big room. They looked at me like I was crazy, and then stepped through the curtain.
It was the same big mirrored room! I could not believe it! The store itself has been updated, and it was a pleasant shopping experience (for some reason, I always think of Loehmann's as having dirty linoleum). But now this? I really thought that they had added private dressing rooms, so I was surprised, but also glad that the girls had a 10 second warning. I did not expect the calm that ensued. I expected some sort of fight, or NO WAY!!! Or, perhaps, even tears. The older one said "well this will cure me of my dressing room issues." The other one just layered on the clothes, pulling off what she could without undressing.
Luckily, it worked out well with the two year old, since there was ample place for her to run around. In one of those runnings she ran over to the door where they put the rejected clothes on a rack similar to the kind they have at a dry cleaner. The attendant places the clothes on color coded hooks to help facilitate the apparel's quick return to the shopping floor. I remember being mesmerized by it as a young teenager, wishing it was a roller coaster I could hop on. I don't know what The Cheese-Eater thought it was, but she liked it.
Chasing her over there, and trying to prevent her from following the track to parts unknown, I noticed another doorless entryway, to an area that had......PRIVATE FITTING ROOMS!!!!!
I went back over to the girls, and told them about my mistake, and asked if they wanted to move, and they both said "Nah, this is fine."
Not much of a shopper myself (God's sense of humor I guess, blessing me with 6 girls), and even less of a studier, the only time I was really amenable to going shopping was when I needed a good way to avoid sitting and doing my schoolwork. Often those attempts at buying me clothes meant a trip to Loehmann's, which always tempered my not studying enthusiasm, especially during bathing suit season.
You see, as successful as we were at Loehmann's there was always the dreaded dressing room. The dressing room was just one big room with mirrors covering all the walls and hooks at various intervals, and a low bench running the length of the wall to put your things down. I hated this. The Back Room, which had more expensive clothing had real dressing rooms, you know with doors and privacy and all that, so I got smart and would always take one item from there so I didn't have to use the communal room.
Even though my young ladies FREAK if they are in a dressing room and the curtain or door opens the slightest bit while they are in the process of trying on new things, I decided to take them to Loehmann's anyway.
Plus, a long time ago I heard the Loehmann's put in real dressing rooms, private stalls with doors, and I knew that somewhere in the back of my mind, but just to be safe, as we approached the area laden with clothes for our inspection, I jokingly said to the girls, you know the dressing room might be just one big room. They looked at me like I was crazy, and then stepped through the curtain.
It was the same big mirrored room! I could not believe it! The store itself has been updated, and it was a pleasant shopping experience (for some reason, I always think of Loehmann's as having dirty linoleum). But now this? I really thought that they had added private dressing rooms, so I was surprised, but also glad that the girls had a 10 second warning. I did not expect the calm that ensued. I expected some sort of fight, or NO WAY!!! Or, perhaps, even tears. The older one said "well this will cure me of my dressing room issues." The other one just layered on the clothes, pulling off what she could without undressing.
Luckily, it worked out well with the two year old, since there was ample place for her to run around. In one of those runnings she ran over to the door where they put the rejected clothes on a rack similar to the kind they have at a dry cleaner. The attendant places the clothes on color coded hooks to help facilitate the apparel's quick return to the shopping floor. I remember being mesmerized by it as a young teenager, wishing it was a roller coaster I could hop on. I don't know what The Cheese-Eater thought it was, but she liked it.
Chasing her over there, and trying to prevent her from following the track to parts unknown, I noticed another doorless entryway, to an area that had......PRIVATE FITTING ROOMS!!!!!
I went back over to the girls, and told them about my mistake, and asked if they wanted to move, and they both said "Nah, this is fine."
Candy Doesn't Pay
Every so often, the British remind us of how they managed to lose most of an enormous global empire with breathtaking speed.
A recently published study chronicles a research project in which British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Their findings? Of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69% were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34, a substantially higher percentage than those who consumed sweets on a less-than-daily basis.
The conclusion is clear. While an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a candy a day will eventually lead to keeping the bail bondsman on speed-dial.
In my opinion, this "study," and its conclusion, represent statistical stupidity writ large.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that this study was commissioned by Kraft Foods, in an attempt to supress the valuation of Cadbury, in the former's attempt to complete a hostile takeover of the latter.
On a serious note, has anyone considered that the candy-crime link is a bit flawed?
Perhaps children of single-parent households, or those with relatively less-educated parents, or those from lower-income households are more likely to eat unhealthy diets, such as daily servings of candy, or other sorts of junkfood.
Coincidentally, children from those less-advantaged income or family-structure segments are much more likely to commit violent crimes in adulthood.
How's this for a statistical conclusion? Remember how your parents always told you to tie your shoelaces when you were a kid? They pointed out that if you walk around with your shoelaces untied, you could get hurt. Turns out they were right. Research shows that people who walk around with untied sneakers (and who wear their pants six inches below their waists, and their baseball caps sideways, and wear an overabundance of large gold-plated jewelry) are 20 times more likely to be injured or killed in a drive-by shooting. Shocking. It's enough to make me want to trade in my cap-toed oxfords for a pair of loafers, just to minimize the risk.
In other words, there probably isn't a direct link, or at least a causal relationship, between candy and violent crime. Rather, those distinct groups - daily candy eaters and violent criminals - share common background characteristics. So, a rich suburban kid, from a dual-parent home, who happens to eat candy regularly when he/she is 10 years old, is no more likely to eventually commit a violent crime than is his neighbor or private-school classmate.
Then again, perhaps I'm just trying to discredit this study, and its ramifications, for personal reasons. After all, if there truly is a link between daily candy consumption and violent crime, FBB and I have got a future serial killer or two on our hands.
A recently published study chronicles a research project in which British experts studied more than 17,000 children born in 1970 for about four decades. Their findings? Of the children who ate candies or chocolates daily at age 10, 69% were later arrested for a violent offense by the age of 34, a substantially higher percentage than those who consumed sweets on a less-than-daily basis.
The conclusion is clear. While an apple a day keeps the doctor away, a candy a day will eventually lead to keeping the bail bondsman on speed-dial.
In my opinion, this "study," and its conclusion, represent statistical stupidity writ large.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that this study was commissioned by Kraft Foods, in an attempt to supress the valuation of Cadbury, in the former's attempt to complete a hostile takeover of the latter.
On a serious note, has anyone considered that the candy-crime link is a bit flawed?
Perhaps children of single-parent households, or those with relatively less-educated parents, or those from lower-income households are more likely to eat unhealthy diets, such as daily servings of candy, or other sorts of junkfood.
Coincidentally, children from those less-advantaged income or family-structure segments are much more likely to commit violent crimes in adulthood.
How's this for a statistical conclusion? Remember how your parents always told you to tie your shoelaces when you were a kid? They pointed out that if you walk around with your shoelaces untied, you could get hurt. Turns out they were right. Research shows that people who walk around with untied sneakers (and who wear their pants six inches below their waists, and their baseball caps sideways, and wear an overabundance of large gold-plated jewelry) are 20 times more likely to be injured or killed in a drive-by shooting. Shocking. It's enough to make me want to trade in my cap-toed oxfords for a pair of loafers, just to minimize the risk.
In other words, there probably isn't a direct link, or at least a causal relationship, between candy and violent crime. Rather, those distinct groups - daily candy eaters and violent criminals - share common background characteristics. So, a rich suburban kid, from a dual-parent home, who happens to eat candy regularly when he/she is 10 years old, is no more likely to eventually commit a violent crime than is his neighbor or private-school classmate.
Then again, perhaps I'm just trying to discredit this study, and its ramifications, for personal reasons. After all, if there truly is a link between daily candy consumption and violent crime, FBB and I have got a future serial killer or two on our hands.
Upwardly Mobile Mayor
This week, Forbes magazine released its widely-followed list of the wealthiest Americans, the "Forbes 400."
Not surprisingly, the collective wealth of the Forbes 400 declined over the past year, for only the fifth time since 1982.
A highlight: Mike Bloomberg, FBB's favorite mayor, has cracked the top 10, landing at the #8 spot, with an estimated net worth of approximately $17.5 billion.
Bloomberg's net worth was boosted by a recent transaction which valued Bloomberg L.P., the media and financial data firm he founded, at more than $20 billion. Mr. Bloomberg now owns about 85% of that firm, after buying out Merrill Lynch's 20% stake.
Much to FBB's chagrin, I'm actually something of a fan of Mayor Bloomberg, and it goes beyong the fact that we are both alums of Johns Hopkins.
Bloomberg is a classic example of someone who has "done well while doing good." He has donated more than half a billion dollars to charity over the past five years, an estimated $235 million in 2008 alone, according to Forbes.
So, whether or not you agree with his policies, or his end-run around New York City's term-limits laws, one thing about him is indisputable: He is one of the great philanthropists of our times.
Maybe he could donate $7 billion to New York City, to cover the anticipated tax revenue shortfall in 2010.
Something tells me that within a couple of years, Bloomberg will be begging for retroactive term limits.
Not surprisingly, the collective wealth of the Forbes 400 declined over the past year, for only the fifth time since 1982.
A highlight: Mike Bloomberg, FBB's favorite mayor, has cracked the top 10, landing at the #8 spot, with an estimated net worth of approximately $17.5 billion.
Bloomberg's net worth was boosted by a recent transaction which valued Bloomberg L.P., the media and financial data firm he founded, at more than $20 billion. Mr. Bloomberg now owns about 85% of that firm, after buying out Merrill Lynch's 20% stake.
Much to FBB's chagrin, I'm actually something of a fan of Mayor Bloomberg, and it goes beyong the fact that we are both alums of Johns Hopkins.
Bloomberg is a classic example of someone who has "done well while doing good." He has donated more than half a billion dollars to charity over the past five years, an estimated $235 million in 2008 alone, according to Forbes.
So, whether or not you agree with his policies, or his end-run around New York City's term-limits laws, one thing about him is indisputable: He is one of the great philanthropists of our times.
Maybe he could donate $7 billion to New York City, to cover the anticipated tax revenue shortfall in 2010.
Something tells me that within a couple of years, Bloomberg will be begging for retroactive term limits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)