Music Monday ~ Magic Carpet Back to Childhhood

I didn't answer this question, posed at Quora this week in the music section:


What’s the song that takes you back to when you were a kid?


I'll answer it here instead. No need to think long nor hard: "You Are My Sunshine".
My Dad used to sing it to me. :)




As an adult, I like this version from Neil Diamond in "The Jazz Singer" movie:




Which reminds me - I want to see that movie again - must use the 'search' facility on ROKU soon!

"Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me....."(?)

I was way out of date in my understanding of the current crop of news on the immigration situation in the USA. I was still of the mindset that the immigration problems the President, Rick Perry and some of our Oklahoma politicians have been talking about were the usual problems concerned with Mexican nationals crossing the US border illegally, then finding work and remaining, undocumented, in the USA. I was wrong on this. That's what comes of not watching TV news, ever, and eschewing local newspapers due to their heavily Republican leanings - blood pressure can only stand so much!

I'm up to date now. Husband read aloud a few lines from a piece in a local newspaper yesterday, about the facility recently set up to house around 1,100 young illegal immigrants at Fort Sill, Lawton (a half hour's drive from where we live). My response - "But I thought the flow of Mexicans coming into the US to find work had declined a lot recently - so what's happening?"

It turns out that the recent influx, of thousands of mainly young to teenage children, and some with their mothers, from South American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador are fleeing dangerous and inhumane conditions in their homelands, and are hoping for some kind of asylum in the USA.

Reading around the net I was sickened by some commentary on this issue. It seems a good proportion of our God-fearing, church-going, US-loving citizens would rather kick out these kids, no questions asked, no aid provided. Yeah, these Americans love the unborn fetus so much it hurts, yet once a child is out in the wide and unkind world they don't give a damn about 'em or their needs.

There are at least three large government facilities set up to temporarily house this new influx of immigrant youngsters: one in California, one in Texas and that at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, much to the chagrin of Governor Mary Fallin, Sen. James Inhofe, and Rep. Tom Cole. Compassion is, of course, an unknown emotion to Oklahoma's ruling body.

I realise that there will have to be limits to what can be done for these young would-be immigrants, but a compassionate approach to investigating possibilities costs little or nothing - and money spent on this issue trumps any amount spent on sending drones to attack suspected would-be terrorists, while in the process murdering many innocents abroad - including women and children

It's quite hard to find a fair and sane assessment of the situation as a whole. I eventually found a piece by a lawyer in California, where there has been a two-fold reaction to the new immigration situation there, half in favour of giving all help possible, half in favour of immediate deportation.

Here is the opening paragraph from his piece at Andrew Nietor's Blog

First, Remember Why They Came
There are many reasons people have come to this country over the centuries. Sometimes it is the pull of what our nation has to offer, and sometimes it is the push of war or violence or famine in the home country. Make no mistake about the current crisis: it is not just a quantitative increase in the number of undocumented aliens coming to this country for work or for "a better life." The unspeakable horrors of violence sweeping Central America recently, including widespread violence against women and children, is unlike anything that has been seen there in decades. When the capital of Honduras is second only to Aleppo, Syria in the list of most murders, and when our own State Department declares that violence against women in Guatemala and across Central America has reached war-time levels, you can understand why people are fleeing, or sending their children abroad. Would you do less for your child if she were statistically more likely to be sexually assaulted than find employment? We can at least be aware of what conditions are behind the crisis as we formulate a response. And we can remember that our own law compels us to listen to a refugee's plight before a decision is made as to whether to allow her to remain here or return.

Mr Nietor goes on to contrast, in detail, the differing reactions of California residents.

“I take issue with many people's description of people being "Illegal" Immigrants. There aren't any illegal Human Beings as far as I'm concerned.”
― Dennis Kucinich

Brits: Seeing Y/Ourselves As Others See Us

A loose follow-up to yesterday's post prompted by what I saw as a rather cock-eyed article in Huffington Post the other day:
"A Letter to William & Kate" by Emma Jenner. Snip:
"I am an English nanny myself, with 17 years of experience caring for families in England and America. In fact, I had my own show on TLC, "Take Home Nanny," in which I showed parents the best principles of English parenting. The English are truly great at bringing up resilient, well-mannered, brave, and kind children. Too many parents -- in our own country and across the Western world -- have lost sight of what we've always done right."

The article, and comments, are overflowing with generalities, to the point of being almost laughable.

One commenter "outed" the article's author:

FinnishReader: Look up the author and connect the dots. The woman's flogging her own child-raising consultancy business (Google Emma's Children) in a nicely indirect way with a bit of "background information" about how the Brits purportedly raise their kids and the results thereof. There's nothing wrong with self-promotion, and if Downton Abbey's ratings are anything to go by, there are plenty of self-styled Anglophiles out there ready to part with their money for a touch of class for both themselves and their offspring. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe this clichéd drivel.

I often wonder whether people in the USA who have never visited Britain actually envisage that land across the Atlantic as an extension of Downton Abbey.

I found it entertaining to read the thread of comments following the piece. An exercise in seeing ourselves as others see us. A few examples, credited by screen-names with, where appropriate my own thoughts as a person of dual nationality British/USA, with over 60 years' experience of life as it is lived in the British Isles.

King 72: I'm not a fan of the Brits myself but good manners always lead to good relations. Don't be too hard on the Brits, they can't seem to help their pompous arrogance. They always use diplomacy at first to get what they want from another nation before invading them and exploiting the land and the people. They've invaded 90% of the other nations on earth. Don't let their good manners fool you.

Hmmmm - I can see where this commenter gets the impression of pomposity and arrogance - Brits who have face and voice recognition over here, the likes of Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan, Steven Fry! Also springing to mind in relation to his other points: stones and glass houses!!

BeFairNow:Well that explains a lot about what is wrong with British society - the emotional ineptitude, the stuffy cluelessness of the privileged and the relentless reinforcing of the aforementioned from one generation to the next. People only hire British nannies because they think that these attributes will allow their children to be accepted into the stuffy, insular elite but what highly paid nannies like this one never tell their cash cows is that it takes birth, not simply wealth and privilege to be considered aristocracy in a class-based society like the UK. Furthermore, the idea that Brits are good at raising children is laughable at best. Take your child to any restaurant or entertainment venue not specifically designed for children and they are treated as pariahs. Still, it's an improvement, as mere centuries ago (and trust me, a century is not considered a long time in a place with as much history as the UK) children were tightly wrapped in swaddling and suspended from pegs on the nursery walls until they were old enough to be interesting (if they survived). The royal family also has a questionable record with child rearing, judging from some of Prince Charles's horror stories, particularly about his father. The writer of this article needs to come down from the clouds of cluelessness and joint the rest of us regular folk on terra firma!

Erm.... British society? What exactly is that? There are at least couple of reasonable points made in the comment above though, highlighted.

kinopravda:I see that the British notion of cultural superiority is alive and well. The British apparently are like the French, they have not realized that their empire is gone, that their influence has waned, and that they simply are not the force that they were in just the previous century. These abominable, generic, claims to superiority strike me not only as arrogant, but as seriously flawed as well. In other words, get off of your high horse. Take a walk, you need it.

Can't resist it......stones and glass houses again.....and how!!!!

A couple of more down to earth views:

BouBou: I don't know what UK is like now, but can testify about the 50's and 60's. Education was strict, rigorous and would now be considered a little harsh. Money for gifts and luxuries was short to none.
I grew up there at that time and, yes, I am perfect in every way.
But seriously though, folks.........
My daughter is now an American and bringing up a son. If there is a difference, in the USA there seems to be a supportive, permissive tendency with extravagant praise offered up for a very slight effort or achievement. Also , the household centers around the kids with little priority for adult interactions .As a result US kids sometimes exhibit what seems to us like a confidence , assertiveness and bravura which is not always appropriate. But, hey, I'm a fossil.

AND

liveinhope: As a Brit myself and - not surprisingly - the child of British parents, let me state unequivocally that I have never read such a load of unmitigated tripe in my life. British parents - like parents everywhere else - come in all varieties. We do not have a monopoly on manners or good taste and as far as a lack of tolerance for bullying, you must be out of your tiny mind. British schoolboys - particularly when they reach they teens - have historically been some of the most sadistic and unpleasant bullies in the world.

The rest of the planet may be sinking into some kind of pre-natal, royal parenting euphoria but let's not kid ourselves, OK? Most Brits know that if you want to look at an absolutely horrible parent, you need look no further than Prince Phillip - Charles' dad who was (and probably still is) a nasty, vicious sadist whose idea of good parenting was to humiliate and berate his sons for their shortcomings.
This article is about as relevant to British parenting as Mary Poppins is to child care. In short, stereotype reinforcing, populist bilge.

TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN

GUEST POST by GIAN PAUL

On a recent gathering on a sailboat there were six people, no wind, relatively cold weather and only two of us on board had children of his/her own. Given the poor sailing conditions, there was plenty of time to converse. A gynecologist among us asked me whether there were indications in one's horoscope permitting to know about having children or not. Despite her professional expertise (and being pretty), she had not been able to have children, hence her question.

With no children myself, and having studied some astrological textbooks and what they say in this respect, here's the gist of our "sailor's conversation":

House 5 (the house of procreation or creativity) in a person's map is indicative of the likelihood of having or not having children in one's life. It is evidently more certain if there are - or not - any planets in the maps of both persons forming a couple. If there is a personal planet (except Mercury) in the map of one of them, this may indicate children. But they will only be of "little importance" to one of the parents, if he/she has no planet in his/her House 5. (The children concerned will probably not like that parent as much as the other).

In my natal map there is one planet in 5: as it happens, it's Mercury. I never wished to have children myself (the prospect of being a father was too much of a "bourgeois thing" for me). I quite seriously investigated, astrologically as well, this personal option of mine. Born in 1943 in the Swiss Alps, I have lived as a child the invasion by "too many tourists" of our then beautiful and quasi-virgin surroundings. It started in 1948 with the winter Olympics in St. Moritz, then came Club Med in the 60's and all the "Nouveau Riches" and their imitators who fatally would be following. At such an early age I had no idea of great agglomerations, the suburbs of big cities and other even worse, overcrowded places in this world. To me as a youngster, a place that quadrupled in population during the tourist season was an abomination. To wait for over an hour to go up a ski-lift was hardship, so spoiled we were then.

To tell it straight and right at the beginning here: in my opinion, maybe very egoistically, the world at large would be better off if there were fewer people. Economic "imperatives" however appear to say the contrary. For obvious, commercial reasons. Accepted norm says that there should be "economic growth, and better steadily, so even the lazy can prosper". And with them the automobile - and so many other polluting industries, even the defense-industries. Following the principle that the more the world gets crowded, the more augment the risks of conflict. And consequently the need to "defend" one's possessions or territory.

From the preceding it's evident that our modern politico-public-government-capitalistic-(or-not) -social-system wants us to continue to grow in numbers. All over the place. Even some today still important churches contribute to that by categorically opposing contraception etc. And then people complain about pollution. If not about that produced in their own country, unfailingly of the pollution created by their neighbors.

Respecting the recommended principle of keeping a balanced view, one must, given the world's situation today, laud a recent initiative by the Indian Government. The situation in India being close to getting out of hand (even more today as everybody there also wants a car or at least a motorbike), the Indian authorities recently announced that they "will pay recently married couples not to have kids". Half the population in India is under age 25. China did the same some 30 years ago, starting under Mao. Only they did not offer to pay. There it was by threatening with punishment, even jail. Costs less and is probably more efficient. But India is still influenced by the more polite British...

This being a bit of a complex subject, it's probably useful to look at it the way one cuts a chicken, piece by piece, the legs first.

In the centuries past, when Europe and other places were at times suffering from a lack of population growth (famines, pest, wars) and their way of life, mostly agricultural, demanded permanent replenishment of young human beings (farm-arms), our ancestors did what was required. Women were quasi-constantly pregnant. Question of survival. This appears to still be the "ideal" pursued by a certain church with it's headquarters in Rome. The same type of pundits who pretended that the earth is flat until that idea became unsustainable.

In modern times, medical and other progress helping, including of course the pill, God (or what one may differently call "Higher Events in Human Evolution"), brought about, and for the first time, the possibility of choice in this question of procreation. For entire nations and for each person individually. This time, and that's new, the environment starts being taken into account. Maybe or foremost, the main reason being that humans have become an ever more polluting species. It's not just CO2 or our mountains of garbage. But many other factors: to e.g. produce 1 ton of steel, over 7 tons of water are wasted. Etc. etc.

For atheists and people not particularly religious, the demands of a healthy environment appear to be enough reason to start thinking about what's healthy for our environment in terms of populating the planet. So they mostly agree that some limitation to population growth is desirable. To the more religiously inclined, one may suggest that if God (or their particular God) has recently permitted that some scientists invent the pill and other methods to limit undesirable procreation (the pill for the day after, or 5 days after), they'd better listen as well. If not for themselves, at least by not opposing those who do wish to contribute to limit the excessive growth of the world's population.

In a way, humanity is being faced on various fronts with the same basic question: how to take better care of our planet. It's about resources, population growth and the well-being of those already in existence. The capitalistic "economic-growth-is-needed-concept" no doubt requires some profound revision.

To end these considerations on an astrological note: If there are planets in House 5 of a person or in the respective houses 5 for both partners in a couple, it's likely that children will be born. There is however no planetary indication as to the number of children they should have. So reason (and not hazard) can limit that.

Also, if it turns out to be difficult for somebody to have children, maybe before running to consult the expensive "X-famous-gynecologist-wonder-child-producer" and have some implanted-semi-artificial child, it might be intelligent first to consult a competent astrologer. If there are indications in the horoscope for children, then go and see the wonder doctor. If not and the desire to have a child is strong, consider to adopt. That can be doubly useful, for the adopted child and by not adding more people to what may already have reached the limit of desirable numbers of humans on this earth.