%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |  I've maxed out. Closed this blog. |
|
This is a way of making myself write something coherent and grammatically correct almost every day. I'm opinionated and need an outlet. I'm also prone to flights of fancy. Thanks for stopping by. |
| Last month I needed a new prescription. The doctor's office prefers a fax or email from the pharmacy. The druggist insisted they had done that, but would do it again, when the prescription wasn't there after 24 hours. On my 3rd trip, it still wasn't there and I was told to call the doctor. I had to leave a voice mail for the nurse, but I got my medicine that night. Each time the pharmacist advanced me 2 or 3 days worth since I ran out in the course of things and have to take it regularly. I've been taking it for over 15 years. Today I called in another prescription and to save a trip I ordered a refill of the last one. I got there and was told I can't get it until 2 days from now. It's too early per the insurance company. So I will have to make a special trip and waste gas to pick up the medicine later in the week. Two days! Yet with some insurance companies, you can get 90 days if you use their mail order company. There's nothing illegal about getting a month supply two days in advance, but neither druggist nor insurance company will do it. Tell me the business hasn't gone crazy! |
| Words in English may have always had a tendency to change meaning with the times. A blatant example would be "bad". Common usage among the young or "hip" for a while mad "bad" mean really good. "Radical" comes to mind as another word that has altered its meaning and has to be taken into context. Other such words include liberal and conservative. I would say that in modern usage, a person could be both at the same time, depending on context. "Liberal" in Thomas Jefferson's day had a different meaning than it does today. And it means different things when used by various groups or people. Like some media use "liberal" to mean leftist, or socialist, or communist. You almost need to stop commentators and ask them to clearly define their terms so that you can follow what they're saying. Does liberal have to mean a radical departure from current thought? Does it have to mean an advocate of change (from almost anything)? At one time "liberal arts" meant almost the same as "fine arts" and included all higher learning that wasn't meant for the priesthood or religious training. It included science and math. Now "liberal arts" defines an undesirable and impractical education that will not net one a decent living. Having general knowledge and knowing one's place in the world, including civic duty, is not as important as becoming a well paid individual who will one day make significant financial contributions to one's Alma Mater. I don't want to argue what these individual words mean. I have read a lot of commentary lately about these same word choices, their political connotations and historical value. We just need to be clear how we're using them, make sure we understand how others are using them before attacking them. We also need to be sure we're not using good words in a derogatory sense and thereby altering the meaning ourselves. |
| Just a reminder, since it's Mar. 17. Beware the wild banshees. They are female spirits, supposedly family ancestors who weren't quite done with this life, or just couldn't let go. They linger and attach themselves to the family and its descendants. You hear one cry when someone in the family is going to die soon. Now there are two kinds of cries. If it's a good-hearted banshee, especially if the fated one is young or newly in love, the cry will low, and mournful, and very sad to hear. If the banshee is hateful, still full of anger from living, the cry will be extra loud and shrieking, even happy that someone is about to suffer. While we are discussing Irish figures, do you know why you hardly ever encounter a leprechaun these days? Two reasons: school teachers and horror films. First school teachers tell the children not to believe the old tales. It offends the leprechauns that the children, and now the teens and young adults don't believe they exist. So they've moved to the mountains and remote areas where teachers aren't so plentiful. Now, how do they explain the sparks from the fireplace that burn the rug, or things that get turned over or milk that gets spilled? Or the missing cookie? The wee folk go elsewhere to work and explore. Then there's the horror film. Those folks are always portraying leprechauns as dangerous, murderous, and scary. They may be tricky, or even practice the occasional larceny, but never turn to murder, or frightening people. Needless to say, there's now more enmity from regular folks towards the wee folk, so they don't take chances. They're safer far away from any place with TV or movie theaters. Here's hoping your St. Patrick's Day was a merry one. You needn't worry about wearing green, since no one is close enough to pinch you. Erin Go Braugh. |
| I'm about halfway through an on-line course from coursera.org on the age of Jefferson. I think it safe to conclude at this point that if Jefferson were alive today, he would not approve of welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and other tax supported help programs. (Social security is a different topic since people actually pay into that themselves It's not supposed to be coming from taxes). He would approve of privately supported secular charities or church supported charities. He believed in the virtue and the enlightenment of all citizens. A republic or democracy like we endeavor to have is dependent on individual virtue. And where does the virtue come from? Preachers! From Jews and Christians who would live lives worthy of emulation and teach solid values for a peaceful society. He could not foresee the influx of Eastern religions, so he only considered the Judeo-Christian tradition. He held no denominational affiliation; he was a sect of one. He claimed to be Unitarian. He felt strongly that both government and religion needed to be protected from the other, but they were mutually dependent. Neither should impose its will or influence on the other. Religion could not think freely without protection from government, and government could not operate for the good of society without the virtue and personal improvement fostered by religion. He liked most American religions because they were "grassroots" organizations, rather than from the top to bottom like most European religions, such as the Anglican church. Whether America has swung away from TJ's ideal or carried it out can be debated. Certainly, the prominence of personal virtue is questionable. Pop culture tells us that personal enlightenment is not a priority. We do know that religion is necessary for a successful Republic according to Jefferson, as long as neither attempts to control the other. As for helping the downtrodden and the refugee, I think he would say we should be a helpful society and let people volunteer to help, not force them through taxes. |
 Log in to Leave Feedback |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
