I really like this song by Willow Smith (Will Smith's daughter). It's catchy and has some interesting lyrics.
I really like this song by Willow Smith (Will Smith's daughter). It's catchy and has some interesting lyrics.
| Anemone--poppy anemones according to my iPhone info |
| Burning love flowers |
| Potato patch to the left, hosta garden straight ahead, loosestrife to the right |
| Allium plants that the bees love |
| My beautiful wisteria |
| Black raspberry plant--the ripe black berries look like little hats |
| Loosestrife and allium plants, plus a red dahlia |
| Phlox and astilbe flowers |
| Japanese maple |
| Rose mallows |
| Yellow lily |
| Reddish-pink lily |
| Liatris spicata--the dense blazing star, next to a day lily |
| Loosestrife |
This post is inspired by one person who never shuts up. He thinks that everything he has to say is worth listening to. He thinks that every utterance that comes out of his mouth is pure gold. It isn't, not by a long shot. He is insulting, aggressive, snotty, mean, angry, vengeful and old. Grumpy old man. Up all night, can't sleep, taking out his vitriol on others. There are a lot of grumpy old men, but most of them are not in leadership positions, thankfully.
There is one thing he is good for, and that is inspiring young people to think before they speak, if they open their mouths at all. My mother used to say 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all'. She was right. We were also taught not to comment on other people's appearances. Her generation was right about so many things. They had lived through the Great Depression and WWII and knew what true hardship was. They were careful with their words because they were taught to be careful. Children were taught to 'not speak until they were spoken to'. We as children could not just mouth off constantly; our parents would not have tolerated it. The value of monitored speech can be debated, but it made for a quieter world. And perhaps a nicer one.
Sometimes I just want to scream out 'shut the f--k up'. Please, all you politicians who think your words are so impactful. I listened to JD Vance recently talking about how he thought Joe Biden ate an ice cream cone in a weird way, and thought--please just shut up. You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing yourself in front of your children. I don't care if you are Ivy-league-educated. I don't care if you have written a best-selling book. I don't care. Just shut up.
And that goes for all the grumpy old men who feel entitled to comment on women's attractiveness whenever they feel outclassed or challenged by women. They feel entitled to say that women are ugly, or that they look like men, or that they have lost their looks. The list of insults is long. I wonder if any of these men have taken a long look at themselves in the mirror lately. Do they see what the rest of us see and are mostly too polite to comment on? Perhaps more of us should speak the truth about how they look. Really, their narcissism and ignorance boggle the mind. Again, just shut up. No one wants to hear you.
Because here's the value in a collective societal shut-up. We others get a chance to think for ourselves, to enjoy the peace of reflection. We get a chance to focus on things that matter to us, rather than be continually distracted by your nonsense. This collective shut-up goes not only for politicians, but for media pundits and news-people who need to find something interesting to say 24/7. How to find peace? Turn off the tv and tune out social media. It's hard to do. We are addicted to scrolling on our devices. That's how we get our news updates nowadays. But it's a two-edged sword. It's good to stay abreast of what's happening in society, but we have to learn when and where to draw the line. We need quiet time in order to function normally. We cannot be 'on' all the time, listening to the babble that many politicians spout. I am not anti-government, I am anti-babbling. I am anti-nonsense. I don't want to listen to rambling stupid speeches, I don't want to listen to angry old men tell me how to think and feel. And this goes for any other angry old men who are in our faces 24/7, poisoning our society with their vitriol.
Just shut up.
One of my favorite songs from the band Mountain. Hard to believe it was released in 1971, fifty-five years ago. How time flies, really. Seems like yesterday that we were listening to this song for the first time.......
I am hopeful again, after several years where I had begun to wonder if the USA would survive the onslaught of grifting and negativity in which so many of its leading politicians participate. I have written so many times about how money rules in politics. It still does. But there are rising voices against this tide, voices that proclaim that the USA remains a country committed to the highest principles--freedom, justice, opportunities for all. Voices that say that how much money you have cannot define your worth as a human being. Voices that are less capitalist and more, dare I say it, socialist, but in the best way. Call it Christian socialism--concern for others, easing the financial burdens of ordinary people, making housing accessible for more people. The list is long. I see that some universities and educational institutions are making tuition free or at least reducing the annual fees. We are a diverse country populated by blue- and white-collar workers, and the rich. We cannot make life simplest for the rich and ignore the others. It cannot work that way. We cannot continue to be a divided nation, undergoing a cold civil war. That way of thinking is simply is not sustainable in the long run. Average ordinary people do not want polarization, division, war, aggression, bitterness, negativity. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you if that's what floats your boat. A country has to appeal to the best ideals in its citizenry. It has to inspire them with hope and the possibility for change. Otherwise it is a nation in decline.
So Happy 250th Birthday, America! My country by birth. Happy July 4th! I root for you and I know that you will survive this dark period in your history. There are new leaders on the horizon who will lead the country in a new direction, and it's about time. The useless dinosaurs will soon become extinct.
My teenage years seem so long ago, but I can remember so much about them--the insecurities, anxieties, and confusion about where I fit and didn't fit in many aspects of life. That was pre-internet. I was a good student who preferred books to most other things and that got me through the tough times. Plus I had good parents who let me be me, who didn't push me to succeed at any cost. I enjoyed studying and the pursuit of knowledge, but not the stress of exams or competition. Competition was a huge part of our growing up, and while I think it's necessary to inspire the ambition to succeed, too much of it is not a good thing. There is too much of it now among teenagers, but not in the traditional ways--studies and sports. Nowadays it has more to do with online activities--listening to influencers, watching and following TikTok videos, and constantly trying to live up to beauty and social standards that are impossible to live up to.
We did not have internet when we were teenagers, and the more I read, the more glad I am that we didn't. It must be exhausting and stressful for teenagers now to be coupled to internet and social media 24/7, worrying about where they fit not only on a personal level but on a societal and global level as well. Young people now are bombarded with the issues of the world and their societies at every turn--wars, violence, crime, climate change, politics, dating, planning a future, getting a job, buying a house, and so many other things that were easier to keep at bay when we were teenagers. We could deal with these issues one or two at a time. Not anymore. No wonder so many of today's teenagers suffer from anxiety issues. We had tv news, radio news and newspapers, but we could limit our access to them. Or a better way of putting it--they limited themselves. News was not 24/7 like it is now, ditto for newspapers that were published as morning and/or afternoon editions. Reading a newspaper was something you did at the beginning of the day; the weekend editions were larger and you could spend a day or two perusing them. But there was no stress attached to reading them, even though the news they reported wasn't good for the most part. There were wars, violence, crime and all the rest of society's ills at that time too. But for some reason reading about them wasn't overwhelming like it is now. Perhaps there is something to that--reading about an event that has taken place rather than having it blasted at you 24/7 on tv and social media. Everything seems to have a sense of urgency now. A crisis at every turn. If it's exhausting for adults, I can only imagine that it is overwhelming for teenagers who haven't lived long enough to learn how to filter out what is psychologically harmful for them. Parents have to emphasize that to their children--to uncouple from their devices, to slow down, to relax, to read a book, to show them how to enjoy family life. But that means that parents too have to do the same--uncouple from their devices and be present for their spouses and families. I understand that it's not always easy to do this, but it's necessary.
I keep thinking about how the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider for each year that passes. The injustice of it. It has nothing to do with envy. I don't want huge amounts of wealth and never have. My dream as a child was never to become wealthy, but rather to have a rewarding career that paid decent wages, enough to live on with the possibility to save toward a house or car or some nice vacations. I've achieved that. I can't imagine what I would do with huge amounts of wealth--as in billions of dollars. I'd probably give it away like the philanthropists Melinda French Gates and MacKenzie Scott. Seriously, what does one need or even do with all that money?
There's only so much one can accumulate in this life. You can't take it with you, as the old saying goes. The ultra-wealthy have multiple homes--huge homes, private jets, luxury yachts, the best of everything. But what is the best of everything? How would you define the best food ever? Or the most beautiful home? It's all subjective, dependent upon what we like or dislike. I think we are designed to be perpetually unsatisfied, always in search of the new 'best' thing on which we can spend money. But do we need all the things we buy, whether we're ultra-rich or simply well-off?
When you have to find excuses for what to do with your money, then you have too much of it and can give a lot of it away. Give more to charities than you would normally do. Do it quietly so that no one knows what you've done. Give more to your churches. Finance sorely-needed school renovations or road renovations. Donate money to local gardens and parks. Pick a cause. Me, I'd go for beautification of cities and towns--public gardens, botanical gardens, many more allotment gardens, public parks--the list is long. It would be a wonderful idea to get more people interested in gardening and growing their own food. A good idea to get young people off their phones--you can't weed a garden and scroll endlessly on social media. Organizations that help the needy and the poor need your help. Build more houses for low-income families. There are plenty of projects to support that need your help. And how you help will determine the future of many of them. Rather than buying a private jet with your millions, why not buy up thousands of acres of land to give to the state(s) with the sole purpose of preserving the land for posterity. The Rockefeller family did that The Rockefeller Legacy: Philanthropy and Conservation. We need more wealthy people like them and less of those whose flashy lifestyles and unbounded consumerism find their way into the news on a daily basis.
They're an odd bunch, movie reviewers. Those who do it for a living. I sometimes wonder if we've watched the same movie when I read their reviews. More often than not, we are not on the same page. I wonder too sometimes if they have an axe to grind. They find fault with so many things that I would never consider important in a million years. I guess they're trained that way. Or perhaps they've seen so many subpar movies that they have a hard time identifying a good one.
Cases in point. I recently watched the 2017 remake of Papillon with Charlie Hunnam and Rami Malek, and the 2025 film The Alto Knights with Robert De Niro. I liked them both and gave them good ratings on IMDB. Other viewers seem to have liked them as well, since Papillon has a 7.2 rating and The Alto Knights comes in at 5.9. But the critics? They were not impressed with either film. Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com wrote about Papillon: “You know something has gone wrong when you want the hero to escape simply so that the movie can be over (quoting Roger Ebert's comments about the original directly). At least that aspect of the original (from 1973) and the remake remains intact." He gave the film 2/4 stars. His is just one of several negative reviews. The Alto Knights doesn't fare much better. Robert Daniels of RogerEbert.com gave the film 2/4 stars and wrote: "But as a gangster film, “The Alto Knights” does little more than putter along, taking in very few new or interesting sights along the way."
I don't agree with either reviewer. Both films are based on true stories, although I would add, probably loosely-based, at least with Papillon. Papillon is the story of a Frenchman framed for a murder he didn't commit and sent to a horrible prison in French Guiana from which he (and a few fellow prisoners) tries to escape twice, both unsuccessfully, and then finally to Devil's Island from which he does manage to escape. He forms a tight bond with a fellow prisoner, and that aspect lends the film some kindness in the midst of the brutality all around them. They help each other all the way. I found the story touching despite the misery and seediness of prison life. I rooted for both to escape. I didn't find the film too long, and I thought the acting was very good. The film told a good story, was entertaining, and well-acted, hence my liking it and giving it a good rating (4/5 stars).
Ditto for The Alto Knights. Robert De Niro did a very good job playing two roles--mafia bosses Frank Costello and Vito Genovese (Costello overtook the boss role from Genovese, who escaped to Italy to avoid prison for years before returning to the States wanting to resume his former boss role). Debra Messing did a very good job as Costello's wife Bobbie. The reviewers focused mostly on the dual role aspect; they weren't fans of it. It was sometimes a bit confusing to tell the two men apart, but I got used to their different looks so that ultimately it didn't bother me. The movie had enough action to keep me interested, and the story was engaging. The rivalry between two men of very different temperaments, friends from childhood, was well-presented. I don't think that the movie 'puttered along'. I'm not sure what the reviewers were hoping for--more blood and guts? More insane behavior a la The Sopranos? More sex? It's hard to know nowadays.
It's a good thing that movie writers and directors don't make films for reviewers and don't let themselves be stopped or stifled by negative reviews. It's a good thing that they continue in the face of daunting odds. What a dull world it would be without movies.
Interesting sermon today at mass given by one of the more enlightened priests in our parish. He has won over a lot of parishioners with his short, concise and relevant sermons, and with his ability to lead a straightforward mass without a lot of 'extras' (singing half the mass in Latin, a long drawn-out liturgy, boring sermons that merely repeat the gospel message). This is the way you get people on board with attending mass. It tells me that it is not necessary to subject people to boring sermons and an exaggerated liturgy. There is room for hymns and music, yes, but there should be room for a mass or two each week that is short and to the point.
The sermon today had to do with faith--belief in some of the things that the church teaches, for example, the Trinity. Or that communion is the intake of the body and blood of Christ. He stressed that the latter is not just a symbolic idea. I've always wondered about this, because it is one of the things that makes Catholicism different from Protestantism. I've accepted certain Catholic theological ideas on faith alone, because there is no proving what we say we believe in. And that was the priest's point. We live in a world that wants proof, wants to measure and define everything, a world that wants explanations for all things related to religious faith. But in other areas of our lives, we 'accept' things that are impossible to explain, define or prove. So why should our religious beliefs be any different than what we accept on faith when we talk about love, trust, fidelity, and hope. We believe in love, in the existence of love, and while doing so, we accept that love exists with zero proof that it actually exists. We cannot really define it or explain it. We feel it, we know it to be true with our rational minds, but we cannot prove its existence. And yet we fall in love, marry, are faithful to our partners, and trust that our partners are faithful to us. We build lives based on hope, another intangible entity. The lives we live, based on love, fidelity, trust and hope reflect the existence of these things, but they are not scientific proof of them.
This made so much sense to me. It was a perfect example of someone saying something so wise and so relevant that it will stick with you forever. It makes it easier to accept some ideas on faith alone without needing proof of them. I can accept this as a scientist, because I learned that even in science, there were thousands of things that we could not explain. But we like to believe we can explain most everything. We cannot. Some things, like religious ideas, love, fidelity, trust and hope, we must accept on faith alone without being able to define them.
The daily dose of negativity, anger, rage, hubris, narcissism and curse-filled criticism spewed out on social media platforms and on news platforms of all kinds. The continual harassment that never stops and never leads anywhere. Daily haranguing of normal ordinary people who just want to go about their business and not have to deal with a rage-filled vengeful old man's problems. Because let's face it; he's old. He's more than a grumpy old man at this point; there are enough of them in the world. He is a breed apart. Every time he shows up on tv or in my social media feeds, every time there is 'something important, some crisis', yet again, that he just has to share with us, I turn the channel, close social media, turn the page. I block him out. I don't want to hear his voice or see his face. I don't want to see the faces of his family either. I don't want to have anything to do with him or them. I don't want those close to me to even talk about him, but of course that's not possible to expect.
A destructive force. A destroyer of peace of mind, calmness, clarity and rational thinking. He is chaos defined, with no focus and no real aims except to destroy others. He is a cause of anxiety in normal ordinary loving people. I ask the question that I've asked of several of his supporters--how would you like it if your husband, wife, or children behaved toward you like he does toward others? How would you like it if you got shut down every time you opened your mouth, told you were ugly or stupid, told you were useless? I never get an answer. Because there isn't one. His behavior qualifies as emotional and psychological abuse, nothing more and nothing less. I know, because I've experienced this type of abuse, many years ago. But for some reason, his supporters tolerate it. Why?
The USA is 250 years old this year. I was hoping for some positive celebrations of its history, some presentations of the historical experiment that is the country. I don't see much emphasis on a presentation of our history. I guess Americans have to settle for professional wrestling and car racing. I have nothing against either. I just thought that this birthday would be a great opportunity to teach young people the importance of preserving democracy, free speech, and non-partisan political behavior and of putting one's country first--looking out for the common good. I'm not sure if young people even know what that means anymore--the common good. Who can blame them if they don't know--they've grown up in a society that worships money, greed and consumerism. That's why it would be important to show another side of the country--the side inhabited by decent citizens who work hard, raise their families, all without needing to attract attention to themselves 24/7. The salt-of-the-earth types who are what make the USA great. They can be of either political persuasion in my book, as long as they keep a civil tongue in their heads. We need to make America civil and respectful again. That's a tall order but not an impossible one. Miracles do happen (the new pope is one of them).
Today I thought I'd promote my book about growing up in Tarrytown New York by posting two reviews that it's garnered on Amazon. For those of you who might be interested in reading it, here's the link to the book:
And here are the reviews:
This book was written with a lovely nostalgic/historic viewpoint. Since I also grew up and went to school in Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow NY it was very relatable. There are so many great places around the beautiful Hudson Valley and the author has much to share from her historic research!
This is a big hearted and poignant book about a small village on the east bank of the Hudson River.
Written by a grade school classmate of mine who lived in Tarrytown as a child and teenager, it is personal and beautifully written. A must read for anyone with a connection to Tarrytown.
I really like this song by Willow Smith (Will Smith's daughter). It's catchy and has some interesting lyrics.