I read a story today that got me to thinking about crayons. I didn’t realize that it wasn’t until 1958 that Crayola crayons added 16 new colors to bring the large box to 64 shades. Those of you who have children should be familiar with this size box. Before 1958 there were only 48 standard crayon colors (one for each state at the time?).
Some crayons got more use than others. My early artwork included lots of blue skies and green lawns and even some brown trees. I always found white was the hardest color to work with.
Sadly, I have no copies of anything I colored as a child, but I have many examples of the artwork of my children. I trust they will appreciate this some day.
I have always been interested in recycling (even before that term became commonplace). Many of the drawings of my children are on the backs of old court calendars I saved from my days working in a courthouse. This was my attempt to reuse paper and save trees. It was also because I was cheap and real paper cost money. I recall one time when one teacher wondered why there were words like robbery and assault on the back of the drawings. I guess teachers didn’t have to worry about supplies because they didn’t pay for them.
As I said, I don’t have any copies of my artwork as a child.
I wish I did.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
What did you call them?
When I was a kid, we knew about lightning bugs in July. We would capture as many as we could and place them inside a glass jar with a metal lid that had air holes punched in. It was amazing to see the bugs light up.
When my children were small, I remember reading the book Sam and the Firefly by P.D. Eastman. But it wasn’t until the other day that it dawned on me that lightning bugs were actually fireflies, or to be technical, the ones we knew were Cyphonocerus ruficollis.
I never used the term firefly. To me, these insects were simply lightning bugs. I wonder who first termed them that? Shouldn’t it be “lighting” bugs, because what they do is light up? How did they get to be “lightning” bugs? There was never any bolt of lightning coming from them. And who taught us the term for these bugs? Our parents? The kids on the block? Or did we just pick it up by osmosis?
This all came to mind when I looked out my second floor bedroom window in the middle of the night last week. It was pitch black in the backyard and suddenly several lightning bugs did what they do. It was a magical sight.
When my children were small, I remember reading the book Sam and the Firefly by P.D. Eastman. But it wasn’t until the other day that it dawned on me that lightning bugs were actually fireflies, or to be technical, the ones we knew were Cyphonocerus ruficollis.
I never used the term firefly. To me, these insects were simply lightning bugs. I wonder who first termed them that? Shouldn’t it be “lighting” bugs, because what they do is light up? How did they get to be “lightning” bugs? There was never any bolt of lightning coming from them. And who taught us the term for these bugs? Our parents? The kids on the block? Or did we just pick it up by osmosis?
This all came to mind when I looked out my second floor bedroom window in the middle of the night last week. It was pitch black in the backyard and suddenly several lightning bugs did what they do. It was a magical sight.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Dangerous Communication
The internet is dangerous because people can pass along bad information without fact-checking the source.
When communication was printed with ink on paper, people were more responsible about what they wrote. Rarely did they simply forward something someone else wrote. But easy access to e-mail and the internet changed all that. Not only don’t people write original letters, but many don’t even bother to cut and paste before forwarding e-mails that were sent to them.
A case in point – someone recently forwarded an email that expressed outrage that the words “In God We Trust” were no longer printed on the new presidential one dollar coins being released by the US Mint. Similar to the state quarters, which were issued at a rate of four per year, these one dollar coins depict each of our former presidents. The e-mail I received suggested we boycott these coins because of the lack of the religious motto. To some, this seemed like the appropriate thing to do in protest. A modern day Boston tea party, if you will. There was only one problem – the e-mail was bogus.
The words “In God We Trust,” are, in fact, etched onto each coin, albeit on the rim. Since many people don’t bother to check the facts, some will probably blindly follow the e-mail’s suggestion.
In the long run, such activity will not amount to a hill of beans in this instance. These coins will probably only be of interest to collectors and will not see very much acceptance in everyday commerce. But the mere fact that people can be influence by inaccurate, or worse yet, untrue information, is frightening.
A recent story about someone who died, included a quote the deceased allegedly uttered. The quote was innocuous, but it was later discovered that someone had fabricated it and had inserted it into a webpage about the deceased. A reporter writing an obituary, saw it and printed it without knowing it was a phony quote. The reporter’s obit was then published by a reputable news source. The question that must now be asked is: How can we believe anything we read?
Unfortunately, the answer is: We can’t always.
We have to become Doubting Thomases.
When communication was printed with ink on paper, people were more responsible about what they wrote. Rarely did they simply forward something someone else wrote. But easy access to e-mail and the internet changed all that. Not only don’t people write original letters, but many don’t even bother to cut and paste before forwarding e-mails that were sent to them.
A case in point – someone recently forwarded an email that expressed outrage that the words “In God We Trust” were no longer printed on the new presidential one dollar coins being released by the US Mint. Similar to the state quarters, which were issued at a rate of four per year, these one dollar coins depict each of our former presidents. The e-mail I received suggested we boycott these coins because of the lack of the religious motto. To some, this seemed like the appropriate thing to do in protest. A modern day Boston tea party, if you will. There was only one problem – the e-mail was bogus.
The words “In God We Trust,” are, in fact, etched onto each coin, albeit on the rim. Since many people don’t bother to check the facts, some will probably blindly follow the e-mail’s suggestion.
In the long run, such activity will not amount to a hill of beans in this instance. These coins will probably only be of interest to collectors and will not see very much acceptance in everyday commerce. But the mere fact that people can be influence by inaccurate, or worse yet, untrue information, is frightening.
A recent story about someone who died, included a quote the deceased allegedly uttered. The quote was innocuous, but it was later discovered that someone had fabricated it and had inserted it into a webpage about the deceased. A reporter writing an obituary, saw it and printed it without knowing it was a phony quote. The reporter’s obit was then published by a reputable news source. The question that must now be asked is: How can we believe anything we read?
Unfortunately, the answer is: We can’t always.
We have to become Doubting Thomases.
Baseball cards
The scratch-off lottery tickets common today remind me of something from my youth. The idea behind the tickets is that you scratch off hidden information in the hope of uncovering a winning combination of numbers, letters or symbols.
As a youth, I collected trading cards, both baseball and non-sport cards. Instead of scratching off a hidden winner, my friends and I would select a pack from the candy store and before purchasing it, carefully peel back the glued wrapper and push the stick of gum aside in the hope of revealing a Mickey Mantle or low numbered baseball card. For some reason, the numbers 1 through 10 were tough to find. If someone were to tell me that the card company actually printed fewer of these low numbered cards, I’d have no reason to doubt it. At least based on my experience.
It was next to impossible to collect a full set of any series, at least without spending a fortune, which in my case, would have been about a thousand times my weekly allowance. And it was not easy to trade for the cards you needed because usually none of your friends had them either. And if they did, they didn’t have doubles to trade. So we had to be satisfied with quantity over quality. So what if you had triples of some unknown pitcher for the Cleveland Indians. At least your stack of cards was higher than the other guy’s. Eventually the baseball year ended and the cards were tossed into a shoebox for the winter. Next season the old cards would be used to make noise when attached to the spokes of your bicycle wheels and the search for elusive cards would begin again.
Today, the luster, and fun, is gone from baseball card collecting. Especially when you can buy a complete boxed set at Walmart.
I never did get that elusive Mickey Mantle card and now I am no longer interested.
I’d rather toss a cowhide-covered baseball than contemplate a cardboard baseball card. Life is not like a box of baseball cards.
Get out there and live it.
As a youth, I collected trading cards, both baseball and non-sport cards. Instead of scratching off a hidden winner, my friends and I would select a pack from the candy store and before purchasing it, carefully peel back the glued wrapper and push the stick of gum aside in the hope of revealing a Mickey Mantle or low numbered baseball card. For some reason, the numbers 1 through 10 were tough to find. If someone were to tell me that the card company actually printed fewer of these low numbered cards, I’d have no reason to doubt it. At least based on my experience.
It was next to impossible to collect a full set of any series, at least without spending a fortune, which in my case, would have been about a thousand times my weekly allowance. And it was not easy to trade for the cards you needed because usually none of your friends had them either. And if they did, they didn’t have doubles to trade. So we had to be satisfied with quantity over quality. So what if you had triples of some unknown pitcher for the Cleveland Indians. At least your stack of cards was higher than the other guy’s. Eventually the baseball year ended and the cards were tossed into a shoebox for the winter. Next season the old cards would be used to make noise when attached to the spokes of your bicycle wheels and the search for elusive cards would begin again.
Today, the luster, and fun, is gone from baseball card collecting. Especially when you can buy a complete boxed set at Walmart.
I never did get that elusive Mickey Mantle card and now I am no longer interested.
I’d rather toss a cowhide-covered baseball than contemplate a cardboard baseball card. Life is not like a box of baseball cards.
Get out there and live it.
A book on a bus
The other day I had occasion to travel by bus. I made sure I brought a book to read because the trip would take several hours. I didn’t buy a newspaper because I didn’t want newsprint all over my hands.
I did a lot of reading when I traveled to and from college on mass transit through four of the five boroughs of New York City back in the day. Just as you never forget how to ride a bicycle, reading on the bus was no problem.
Standing out like a sore thumb was.
I was the only person on the bus who was reading ink on paper. Everyone else, who wasn’t napping, held a small electronic device. One was checking phone messages; another was making phone calls. One was listening to an iPod; another was watching a video. One was playing games; another was texting. There was even a guy with a normal size laptop computer, who was watching something on the screen. He wasn’t writing or surfing the net, but was watching something that had been downloaded.
I couldn’t help feeling like a dinosaur because I was reading an actual book printed on real paper. Each time I turned a page, I could almost hear someone snickering, “Look at that old guy reading a book.” Of course, no one actually said that. Each person was too busy with his or her own electronic device.
It suddenly dawned on me how shortsighted the premise of Ray Bradbury’s classic Fahrenheit 451 was. The title refers to the temperature at which paper burns and the story predicted a future where books were banned. It seems to me that can never happen now, because “books” have gone digital and are now just electrons running around inside electronic devices.
I did a lot of reading when I traveled to and from college on mass transit through four of the five boroughs of New York City back in the day. Just as you never forget how to ride a bicycle, reading on the bus was no problem.
Standing out like a sore thumb was.
I was the only person on the bus who was reading ink on paper. Everyone else, who wasn’t napping, held a small electronic device. One was checking phone messages; another was making phone calls. One was listening to an iPod; another was watching a video. One was playing games; another was texting. There was even a guy with a normal size laptop computer, who was watching something on the screen. He wasn’t writing or surfing the net, but was watching something that had been downloaded.
I couldn’t help feeling like a dinosaur because I was reading an actual book printed on real paper. Each time I turned a page, I could almost hear someone snickering, “Look at that old guy reading a book.” Of course, no one actually said that. Each person was too busy with his or her own electronic device.
It suddenly dawned on me how shortsighted the premise of Ray Bradbury’s classic Fahrenheit 451 was. The title refers to the temperature at which paper burns and the story predicted a future where books were banned. It seems to me that can never happen now, because “books” have gone digital and are now just electrons running around inside electronic devices.
Alternate endings
Recently I watched an enjoyable movie on DVD. Roger Ebert gave it 3 of 4 stars. I usually agree with his reviews and this one was no exception.
Unlike movies seen in a theater, movies on DVD usually come with bonus special features. This particular DVD’s special features included not one, not two, but three alternate endings to the movie.
After watching the movie, I watched all three alternate endings. Each started with the same scene – one that was not even in the movie. This scene had two of the main characters come to tragic endings in two of the three alternate endings. In alternate ending number one, one character was killed and the other murdered. A third character was then seen testifying at his trial to try to explain why he killed character number two.
Alternate ending number two had the same death/murder combo, but without the trial scene at the end.
In alternate ending number three, the two characters did not die, but drove off into the sunset.
Presumably the director liked the ending he chose for the theatrical version of the film. Why he bothered filming the three alternate endings is beyond me.
Can you imagine reading a novel and then reading three different endings?
It doesn’t make sense to me.
Alternate ending number one to this piece: I loved the different alternate endings. It was like watching four different movies for the price of one.
Alternate ending number two to this piece: I didn’t like any of the alternate endings.
Unlike movies seen in a theater, movies on DVD usually come with bonus special features. This particular DVD’s special features included not one, not two, but three alternate endings to the movie.
After watching the movie, I watched all three alternate endings. Each started with the same scene – one that was not even in the movie. This scene had two of the main characters come to tragic endings in two of the three alternate endings. In alternate ending number one, one character was killed and the other murdered. A third character was then seen testifying at his trial to try to explain why he killed character number two.
Alternate ending number two had the same death/murder combo, but without the trial scene at the end.
In alternate ending number three, the two characters did not die, but drove off into the sunset.
Presumably the director liked the ending he chose for the theatrical version of the film. Why he bothered filming the three alternate endings is beyond me.
Can you imagine reading a novel and then reading three different endings?
It doesn’t make sense to me.
Alternate ending number one to this piece: I loved the different alternate endings. It was like watching four different movies for the price of one.
Alternate ending number two to this piece: I didn’t like any of the alternate endings.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Why people dislike lawyers
The first line of a novel I am reading is this: “I remember someone once telling me that you know it’s cold when you see a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.”
Lawyer jokes have been around for years. They are popular because many people don’t like lawyers. An incident which occurred the other day opened my eyes as to why that may be so. Someone I knew said to me, “Did I see you walking down the street just now?” A normal person would have said, “yes,” since I had just been walking down the street. But because of my legal training, I was compelled to reply, “How would I know what you saw?”
Lawyers are trained to think logically and to separate fact from opinion. When a witness is asked to state what he saw or heard, the witness is expected to simply state the facts without drawing any conclusions or interpreting them. Unfortunately this is not easy to do, because in everyday life, people tend to make judgments about what they see and hear. A lawyer is trained to object when a person puts forth something more than “just the facts.” Naturally, this makes the lawyer seem argumentative since the general public doesn’t always think logically. It was Henry Ford who once said, “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason so few engage in it.”
So the reason lawyers are disliked and made fun of is simply that they think logically and the rest of the world doesn’t.
Lawyer jokes have been around for years. They are popular because many people don’t like lawyers. An incident which occurred the other day opened my eyes as to why that may be so. Someone I knew said to me, “Did I see you walking down the street just now?” A normal person would have said, “yes,” since I had just been walking down the street. But because of my legal training, I was compelled to reply, “How would I know what you saw?”
Lawyers are trained to think logically and to separate fact from opinion. When a witness is asked to state what he saw or heard, the witness is expected to simply state the facts without drawing any conclusions or interpreting them. Unfortunately this is not easy to do, because in everyday life, people tend to make judgments about what they see and hear. A lawyer is trained to object when a person puts forth something more than “just the facts.” Naturally, this makes the lawyer seem argumentative since the general public doesn’t always think logically. It was Henry Ford who once said, “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason so few engage in it.”
So the reason lawyers are disliked and made fun of is simply that they think logically and the rest of the world doesn’t.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
