Gentlemen Lift The Seat

Most of us have seen this comment--or at least heard it said, if you are a male. IMHO, good manners also requires those who raise the seat to lower it before leaving--at least, in a facility shared with women. A famous story has Winston Churchill admonishing the Foreign Office, saying: "In this dispatch you have used every cliche known to the English language, except 'God is love' and 'Please adjust your dress before leaving." I have been observing different customs about the lid that typically fits over the toilet seat. In my family, this lid is only closed when the toilet bowl is used as a place on which to sit. (I often sit there when I am using my electric shaver.) After a flush, it is our practice to leave the lid up. Others close the lid after use of the facility. We have a different practice when there is a water shortage, increasingly frequent in California. When we have no visitors (durinng the day as well as overnight) we don't routinely flush after urination, we just lower the lid. This little ditty describes our system: "Yellow is mellow, but brown goes down".

Retaliation

Sometimes adult males can behave like stupid children. There is a "tradition" in baseball that if a player is plunked (deliberately or accidentally) it is the duty of the pitcher on the other side to retaliate, by deliberately throwing a ball at one of the members of the team responsible for the first "hit by pitcher". Of course, such thrown balls may permanently injure the player receiving one. I recently read of an egregious case. The team at bat had already placed runners at first and second base. No sensible pitcher would deliberately hit another batter, because that would load the bases, and make it much more likely that the batting team would score at least one run. The fact that this was obviously an accidental "HBP" didn't make any difference. The stupid tradition had to be followed, so that the next time the team that had caused the accidental hit came up to bat, one of the players had a ball deliberately thrown at his ribs. Sometimes the result of such retaliatory action is that the offending pitcher will be fined, hardly causing a blip on his bloated salary. In my opinion, the person who should be heavily fined is the manager of the retaliating team, who not only permits but often encourages such infantile behavior. Perhaps the only way to end this childish practice is to deduct one or more victories from the offending team's winning column.

Second thoughts

I have been working to edit and update some of my earlier blogs. One in particular caught my eye. It was called "Polyphony - and dissonance - in church". What I wrote was acurate as to my personal feelings, but in poor taste to share with anyone else. I mentioned three of my fellow parishoners - not by name, but that's not the point. Two of those people are evidently suffering from mental problems. My aural discomfort pales into pathetic insignifigance compared to the problems they are having. I regret my own insensitivity.

The Second Amendment

I find the Gun Lobby's distortion of the Second Amendment's original purpose one of the most damaging aspects of our country's history. Two centuries ago, when there could well have been a need for a militia, it made good sense that citizens had the right to "bear arms". To use this to justify AK 47s and the like is shameful. Many conservative jurists believe that we should consider the intent of the framers of our laws when interpreting them. This mantra is trotted out every time a court uses a "stretched" interpretation to accomplish the purpose intended by Congress. For once, I do look for a narrow interpretation. I believe that the second amendment justifies the possession of pistols and muskets by our citizenry, just in case we ever do need to call out a militia. The right to "bear arms" should not of itself permit the firing of pistols and muskets, of course, unless the user is serving in a militia.at the time. I see no justification for rifles, revolvers, or automatic weapons of any sort. Come on, you conservative justices, sitting for life on the benches of the highest court in the land! Be true to the intent of the framers of the second amendment! Muskets and pistols only, please!

Polyphony--and dissonance--in church

I love plainsong, but I also love polyphony. In fact, almost any form of choral singing. I attend an Episcopal church in Berkeley (St. Mark's), which has for many years enjoyed a choir of some 50 men and women, and it is excellent. There is a regular churchgoer who clearly has some mental problems, although he is in no way dangerous. He does not seem to understand why we sing and pray in unison. He certainly knows the words--and speaks them loudly. He doesn't wait to join in with others, but rushes ahead, a habit which I find quite bothersome. On the other hand, I realize that church is not confined to those who are mentally and physically healthy. Unfortunately for me, another regular, who often sits in the same pew, and thinks that he is word-perfect with the prayers, has the unfortunate habit of adding additional words that don't belong - usually simple words like "and". I find this almost equally disconcerting, as this fellow parishioner also likes to speak very loudly, so I'm constantly hearing his personal version of standard prayers. Then there is the widow of a male Epicopal priest, a retired MD, who has some form of mild dementia, which from time to manifests itself by her returning from the Communion rail and forgetting where she was sitting. I have limited vision and mobility, but I gladly accept these signs of aging in return for (so far!) "having all my marbles". That's thanks to good genes, not to any virtue on my part. I admit to an unfortunate trait: I do think to myself "There but for the grace of God go I". I hereby confess to a lack of compassionate feeling, alas.

Incredibly unbelievable!

I am dismayed by the current usage of these essentially synonymous words to comment on something that is clearly believable. There are various adequate terms that convey positive surprise, such as "amazing", and a current favorite "awesome". Another word that has come to be interpreted in a very different sense than its original meaning is "fabulous".

"Sine Die"

These words were spoken (in the usual butchered Latin) at the recent conclusion of the 77th triennial General Convention of the Episcopal Church. They are normally pronounced by the President of the House of Deputies as "Syney Dye", as "PHoD" (the President of the House of Deputies) adjourns the Convention, and most folk probably think that the words terminate the Convention. Isn't "adjournment" a fancy word for the end of the meeting? Not exactly! Let's first get the pronunciation right. Well, no-one really knows how the Romans pronounced their words. When I was studying Latin, we were informed that there were two main streams of opinion on how to pronounce that language, and we would learn the modern system. Since this was over three-quarters of a century ago, teaching may have changed, but my guess is that the words are probably still pronounced by most Latinists "sinnay dayie". Of one thing you can be certain: "die" is a word of two syllables. ("Dies irae" means "Day of Wrath", and that should confirm the point.) The literal meaning is clear: "without a day". This means that adjournment takes place without a set date for continuation: it doesn't mean termination, although that is normally the reality. In theory, Deputies and Bishops could be recalled, and their work would technically be considered a continuation of the same Convention. "Adjournment" actually implies an interval, usually to a "time certain". The Latin roots of the word imply "to another day". This "teaching moment" is hereby adjourned...