Tuesday, August 27, 2019

Plus Size and Beautiful--Another Lie to Tell Ourselves

I don't know why the subject of weight is so on my mind that I need to blog about it. Well, I take that back. I sort of do know why. I recently found out that I am ten pounds more than I thought.  I don't have a scale. I have for years refused to step on the doctor's office scale, the one that is just inside the door before you get taken to a room to wait for the internist to see you. But the other day, for some reason, I allowed it. I won't tell you the number. The old number was bad enough. Frankly, it's embarrassing.

I take THAT back, oh, not the fact that I was weighed and it was, as an old radio show character,  Chester A. Riley, would say, "a revoltin' development", but the fact that my being weighed this past week was the reason I am writing about size.

Actually, the double speak word "Plus Size" has been roiling around my brain for some time. It has gotten triggered before, specifically when I have been shopping at Target. As one wheels through and past the women's clothes section, there is a mannequin wrapped in the latest cool garb. She is a plus size mannequin.

Image result for plus size mannequin

And try as I mightily have to appreciate her Rubenesque curvature, all I can muster in my mind is the word "fat". And then another word slips into consciousness, "disgusting".  And then, "Oh, God, do I look like that when I am walking around?" And then hoping I still fit into the 14-16 that has been my usual for about 25 years, which is already considered plus.


I just read that a Nike version of a plus size lady in a work out outfit has generated "controversy".

Image result for plus size mannequin

I appreciate that there has been an extreme for years that demands of women to be no more than a size 10, and even that is considered too large. Some of us are just not built small. But as in all things human, why must we go to another extreme to compensate? American women are simply too fat.  One article I read related to the Nike mannequin said that the average American woman of 5 foot 3 inches weighs something like 168 pounds. My friends. The word is fat. It is not healthy. It is not attractive. "Well, that's just you. And it's a prejudice." Well, look into your hearts, dear readers. How many of you, while professing publicly the beauty of the purely plump lady meeting you for dinner at a chic restaurant are thinking precisely the opposite? I have in mind a particular woman, wife to a well known handsome actor. Whenever I read one of those planted celebrity stories about the two of them out on the town, the writer gushes over the two of them, and how wonderful are their outfits and look. He looks wonderful in his outfit. She looks like a woman who has decided that she doesn't want to be attractive anymore when she was once very much so. And as to prejudice, then I am prejudiced against myself. My version of delusion is that though I am overweight, medically, they call it "obese", there isn't a lot of rolling fat. I am pretty darn solid. Well, except for the double chin, and there I can claim that it is merely a factor of being older, and even thin people have double chins.

"Zaftig".  There's a word.  One definition. "A nice rounded figure".  Another slightly more troubling definition, "plump". And now, we have "plus size".  I think I like "a nice rounded figure" better.
But the truth is that all of it is euphemism. And those women walking around with tight pants which emphasize bulge, and sleeveless shirts out of which sprout fleshy wings, are you really corpulent and proud?

Not everything we beings do ought to become a norm.

I eat too much. I eat the wrong things. I am fat. Now I have to be the one to change it. If I do, great, but if I don't, making it the new in thing isn't a good. Don't accommodate me; tell the truth. It might save a life.

I have been, since that weigh in, making an attempt, sometimes pitiful, at adjusting my diet. I have a long way to go. If I could weigh what I did in 1992, I will be delighted. A consummation devoutly to be wished.


Saturday, August 10, 2019

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood--A Satisfying Twist of Violent Justice

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE PLOT TWIST(S) DON'T READ ON.

Image result for once upon a time in hollywood

I admit it. I was leery of seeing Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Quentin Tarantino = violence. I haven't seen any of his other films because of it. But I live in Hollywood--albeit a Hollywood Clark Gable probably never imagined, and I'm still entranced by its mysteries and former glamour, which, by the time the events of this movie unfold, is a lot less glamorous.

And, besides, as I drove in my own neighborhood about a year or so ago, I kept running into old buses with advertising for the old television show "Combat", and old cars, and 1960s era signage.

I mean, I could only admire a movie that using the remnants of Hollywood gone by--like the Musso and Frank Grill, open since 1919--recreated a time fifty years past. I wish I could say I wasn't around then, but I was, although I was on the other side of the country, vacationing with family in a little summer house in the Catskills, away from the tar beaches of the Bronx.

I was a teenager when the catatonic followers of the crazed and cunning Charlie Manson went to a mansion on El Cielo Drive in the Hills of the former Dream Factory and brutally killed an up and coming eight and a half months' pregnant actress, married to a famous director (Roman Polanski who was abroad at the time), and several of her companions.  Unless you have a cast iron stomach, you really don't want to read the details of the demonic sacrifice of innocents achieved that day and the next, as another couple were also murdered by another of the Manson girls.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is set in months before and during the Manson murders. The fictitious fading actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio)lives next door to the soon to be accursed house. Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is Dalton's stunt double, errand boy and ego booster. He spends a lot of time at Rick's house and in the Hollywood milieu, but he lives with his well trained loyal pit bull, in a tiny messy mobile home. Few people mess with Cliff, because he's a stunt man with an actual fighting skill, and the long standing rumor is that he killed his wife and got away with it. There is a rather funny scene on a boat, where the soon to be late wife is hen pecking (are we allowed to say that now a days?) Cliff. He is carrying around what looks to be a spear gun. Nothing untoward happens in the flashback, but the moment allows the audience to speculate along with Cliff's colleagues, "Did he or didn't he?" And any guy who can take on Bruce Lee (a controversial scene I understand as Lee is not portrayed in a charming light) and toss him into a classic car, is someone to be reckoned with, although Cliff gets fired by the head stunt man (Kurt Russell) for his accepting Lee's challenge.

Rick started his career in the 1950s, playing the hero of a Western, kind of like Steve McQueen's first television role, as a bounty hunter who always gets his man---and in Tarantino anti-hero world, gets him never alive, always dead. But now, his "star" as it were is sinking fast, and he's the guy who almost gets the role- again we have the shadow of McQueen (who has a brief appearance in the movie played by Damian Lewis)--but doesn't in "The Great Escape". We even get to see Rick in a scene in the actual movie--thanks to techno magic, as well as in a scene in an actual episode of "The FBI".  In this fateful time, for Rick and for Sharon Tate and her friends, Rick has a new role, as a villain, again, in the short lived TV Series (yes, I watched it), called "Lancer". If James Stacy, Wayne Maunder, and Andrew Duggan, who starred in the series were alive, they might be overjoyed at their Hollywood style resurrection. Stacy's life was particularly tragic, and a brief "you know what's going to happen to him bit" reminds you of the motor cycle accident that, in 1973, took an arm and a leg--all this before he was accused of molestation. As I am writing, I am thinking of what another friend who saw the movie said about it. It's called "Once Upon a Time" for a reason. It's really all about the "What if's" in life.

Cliff, fading alongside his boss and buddy, is driving along when he comes upon a fresh young thing at a bus stop, looking for a hitch. The first time he doesn't pick her up; the second, he does, and she invites him to a sexual encounter (which recognizing statutory rape is not something he wishes to be accused of, he declines) as he drives her to the Spahn Movie Ranch, where she lives with a bunch of other pre-and just slightly post-pubescent girls and boys while the elderly owner sleeps and corrodes in a little room in the clap trap house. At first, Cliff is inspected by Tex Watson, and the other girls, and is deemed acceptable. This whole scene is really creepy and the key thought I had? Get out of there Cliff. But Cliff is concerned about George Spahn, whom he used to know in the good old days, and he pushes his way into the house to see him. Spahn--in the movie at least--played by the always brilliant Bruce Dern, is addled and disinterested in being saved. Cliff is visibly less welcome by the drug fueled girls and boys. When he gets to his car followed by the staring threatening pack, he finds his tire stuck with a knife. And he takes on the young man who did it, not Tex, who is out giving horse tours of the ranch to a pair of middle aged tourists, and gives him a pasting and makes him put on the spare. By the time Tex is called to the rescue of these clearly disturbed people, Cliff has taken off.

The threads are tied, when Rick, alone in the next door Cielo Drive house, hears a loud muffler on his property and finds two of the Manson followers, Tex and one of the girls (probably Atkins, but I'm not sure) trespassing. He chases the hippies away, his courage fueled by the too much alcohol he has ingested.

When we all go to El Coyote with Sharon and her friends, the place of their last meal, the tension has fully mounted. Rick and Cliff have never met Sharon, and Jay and Abigail. But their paths are inexorably merging.  Tex and the girls come back to the area. They get to talking. Well, you know, I know, it is about to happen. Me? I got up out of my seat and stood near the door of the theatre, but still in view of the screen---kind of like a guy on first base, away from it, but close enough, but ready to go. I have read what happened to Sharon, and her nearly ready to be born baby. I don't intend to see it. I can't stand the inevitability.

Rick is in his house pool with headphones on. Cliff is in Rick's House with his dog, getting ready to feed him.

Tex and the girls are in the stopped car, spouting off down with rich clap trap, and revolutionary word salad. I didn't get what was about to happen.

When Tex and the girls burst in, it is not into the Tate-Polanski House. It is into Rick's. The interactions that Cliff and Rick, brief, ordinary in a way, but confrontational, that have altered the trajectory. Cliff is outnumbered but he has a secret weapon. The very very well trained pit bull.

The sequence is so fast, I can't give you the blow by blow, but while the dog has Tex by the crown jewels, Cliff is about to take on the girls. Lots of screaming ensues. I hadn't run for the door. I was expecting violence, but not this violence and it is compelling in its justice I realize, despite myself.

Cliff reduces one of the girls to chopped meat, and sends her crackling through the main door and window to the pool. She shrieks all the way in the exquisite pain she would have to be feeling. Rick, startled on his sound muffled pool float, learning his lines, jumps out of the water, and retrieves--a flame thrower he just happens to have lying around from another movie in which appeared--very much like "Inglorious Basterds" of Tarantino fame.  He incinerates what is left of the pounded girl.

Police. Ambulances. Cliff is badly hurt, but he'll live. Jay Sebring walks down the Tate-Polanski driveway to find out about all the shouting. Rick gives him a brief, uninspired summary. Jay recognizes Rick. Sharon is a fan.  Rick and Sharon exchange pleasantries through the gate voice box. Sharon invites Rick in for a drink.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Sharon Tate, her baby, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Steven Parent, Leno and Rosemary LoBianco, lived and a few crazy bad guys (Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle) got what was coming to them.

I am ashamed to say that it was an enormously satisfying alternative ending. Except Charles Manson, the coward who wasn't there for the mayhem in either version, was still out there.






Wednesday, July 31, 2019

"Why Straws?" and Other Thoughts

A few days ago I was at one of my favorite stalls in the still remaining portion of the Old Farmer's Market that is next to the Grove in Los Angeles getting a little something to eat. As I retrieved my order and my coca cola, I took a straw. I guess this area being in Los Angeles, and not in West Hollywood, where I live, plastic straws are still in a visible spot.

Anyway, the server and I got into a short discussion in terms of bans and other regulations said to be for our own good by our elected officials. She asked, "Why straws?"  I said "I ask the same thing, but usually, quietly, because it is offensive to disagree to many these days, and if you do, such discussions usually resolve nothing or devolve with the offended's use of an ad hominem rather than a reasoned explanation. The server said, "Well, not me, I ask 'why straws?'"

As I went about the rest of my day, the "Why Straws?" question rumbled in my head. I consulted Google, which, despite its own likely delight in straw banning, would at least give me an inkling of the of the peculiar focus. There were several articles about a turtle that was injured by a straw that quite literally went up its nose and got lodged there. As an animal lover, I felt horrible about this, and while I was at it, about all the creatures that get tangled in human trash plastic and otherwise. But I didn't find a really satisfactory answer about straws, in particular. And if you are going to ban the straws on your cuppa of cola, you really need to ban the lid that is plastic, and while we are at it, the big cups that are plastic for the super super drinks. Maybe they will get to that, but I found myself mentally digressing and asking, "Why is there so much plastic in the ocean?"  Well the reason is, in large, though not in total part, human littering. People throw stuff in the oceans, and lakes, and on the ground where water/rain/washing sends it into the sewers (the ones not blocked) and into the ocean and lakes.

As usual, it is human conduct, or in this case, misconduct, that is largely responsible for the stuff that hurts the creatures in the ocean. And the easy fix? Ban something. Don't deal with the miscreants who throw their garbage out car windows, or throw their last Styrofoam take out box on the ground, or spit on the ground as they cross the street, ban something so that people who do follow rules don't have the benefit of use.

The real fix would seem to be to prevent the items from getting into the ocean, by enforcing the laws already on the books about littering, and, in the case of one of the other reasons things get into the ocean (like blowing off trash trucks, or blowing out of the large containers in landfills) figuring a way to keep the stuff inside the disposal unit. But politicians like the symbolic solution, not the real one.

Back to straws for a second. Many of us, dare I say, most of us, bring our large cup drinks into our cars, where, when we were able to get straws without feeling like Jean Valjean, we could take a quick and easy sip as we sat at the red light. Without a straw, you have to negotiate an open container of stuff, unless you have one of those really cool sippy cups. And if you get rid of the lid, you have your favorite fizzy slopping around we you hit the many bumps on the road of your deteriorating infrastructure that your local politician doesn't get fixed because it is better if you just ride a bicycle or the train or bus.  Accident anyone? You are not really supposed to drink or eat in your car anyway, so let's get rid of those cup holders!

And as to bans, they are not really always bans. They are often revenue raisers purportedly to take care of the oceans and the creatures in them affected by plastic, that goes into the back hole of whatever city hall corresponds with your progressively minded location, and is never heard from again. And the oceans and the creatures still are in critical need of address.

So, for example, I have read over and over that plastic grocery bags are banned, and that one should bring one's reusable bag (there in lies another interesting health hazard the long term consequences of were ignored apparently). That's great for the stores and the revenue as most of us forget those bags at home or in our cars and so need to get more. Or you can pay for a paper bag. Ten cents please.

But you know what? Every store still has plastic bags, thicker ones, to be sure, but they are some kind of plastic and I cannot imagine they are doing turtles any good.  The only difference is that you pay ten cents for those too!  I went on Google again to see what the pundits, think about that and I couldn't find a reference to plastic bags being sold for ten cents, or plastic bags still being sold.

I like plastic bags. I put used cat litter in them; wet cloths I am throwing away, and such. So I pay the ten cents for them. One thing is for sure, plastic bags have not been banned. I am fine with that, but it makes me question ever more the sense of accomplishment our political betters seem to have.



Apropos of straws in restaurants? You can't have them there either unless you ask. I guess no one is worried about the multitude of lips touching glass and I hope that the folks that wash dishes use really really hot water. You might have heard that things like the bubonic plague, measles, whooping cough and who knows what else, is back in Los Angeles and other big cities. That's progress. 


Friday, July 26, 2019

Miracle of Clarity

No, this is not an attempt at a philosophical or theological treatise. It is merely about a not so little technological miracle for which I am grateful.

I began wearing glasses when I was six or seven years old. As happens with many children, I wasn't seeing the blackboard in my classroom. In particular, in arithmetic classes, I was having a particular problem. It wasn't that my answers were wrong (my math anxiety that would cause wrong answers was a few years away), but that the questions were. Sister Ursula, I'm thinking it was, was perspicacious enough to call my father (always the primary contact for school matters) to suggest his one and only had an eye problem. You'd think that I would have noticed I saw everything in shades of foggy, but when you don't know how your sense is supposed to be, you are not aware of a deficit.

So at a tender age, I began to wear glasses. Now in those days, the lenses in glasses for someone with approximately 20/600 vision, were coke bottles. They just had to be think to do whatever that refraction thing was (I think) to make seeing possible. Thus, however beautiful I thought the frames were, once they were fitted with the lenses, I certainly looked like Mr. Magoo. 

I suppose it was tolerable enough when all I had to consider was going to school, doing my homework, and playing "Red Light, Green Light" in and around our tenement courtyard (tenement means, a multi-family building of any sort, where there are separate apartments; lately of course that word has taken on a negative connotation alas).  But then I was in high school, an all girls high school to be sure, but one that shared dances with the local boys' schools, like Mt. St. Michael.

I wasn't pretty, at least in my mind, and glasses, however necessary, added to my sense of futility about having any boy ask me to dance. So at the very first one I attended in Freshman year, I decided that the thing to do was to ditch the glasses, hide them under the bleachers, and ask my friends if a guy who approached me met with their approval, and thus, mine. The fact that the lighting was so low combined with my serious myopia mean that not only could I not tell what the approaching boy might look like but I was lucky I could make out if they had any features at all.

I squinted and sweated in anxiety through that first dance. When it concluded, I rummaged under the bleachers for my specs, and promptly stepped on them. Arriving at home, I cried as I begged to be allowed to try contact lenses. I am not sure whether it was my sincerity or my persistence (I tended to be an obedient and unobstructive child so if I was insistent, my parents probably felt it was serious enough to warrant consideration).  Contact lenses were no inexpensive commitment in the 1960s. They weren't quite as massive as the glass ones my uncle Tony actually had (I guess for driving his bus, though I really don't know come to think of it), and they were hard plastic, and the word was that some people couldn't get used to them. I was 14 so my parents were skeptical. Me? I was highly motivated.

My father took me to the offices of Lewis Schachne, an opthomologist in chic Manhattan, the first place I ever saw the Magazine "Highlights for Children". After the examination, both dad and the doctor pointed out that it would take several weeks to get used to the contacts, if I could. I had to work up to wearing them, an hour a day, then two, and so on. Although I can be impatient about many things, when I know that I really have to do something, or want to do something, I will commit with fervor.

And so I did. I wore hard contact lenses for the next eight years. This was, I suppose, the first miracle of clarity. Yeah, it could be difficult at times, particularly if anything, dust, a hair, anything, got under the lens. This would cause all sorts of eye gyrations, and tears as the eye tried to get rid of the irritant. I got good enough on train rides and bus rides on the No. 1 bus on the Grand Concourse in popping out the lens (lots of wearers can relate to this), somehow removing the obstruction and popping it back in. Not particularly hygienic to be sure, but in the days before warnings on everything, worrier though I was about most everything, this I did not worry about. I ultimately got to a point where, again not recommended, that I could wear the lenses all day and into the night. Most people would never see me with glasses. I was liberated!

But when I was in college, there was a hitch. One night I came home, popped out the lenses and my eyes became a painful waterworks. Dad and I went to the Emergency Room at Montefiore Hospital, but by the time they got to us, hours later, my eyes were no longer watering or hurting.

I was told that I had corneal abrasions. This apparently was a consequence for long time hard contact lens wearers, and I could not wear them for more than a few hours a day, if that. Although by this time, soft contact lenses were in use, they had not yet become workable on someone with an astigmatism, so I was out of luck.  Fortunately, now it was the 70s, and aviator glasses were in, lenses were a little less think, and with a  tint, I could get away with it. Anyway, the 70s were not a fashion period, so I blended in quite nicely with my long hair. I was a little bit Gloria Steinman, in look. Well, that's what I told myself

Once I was in law school, soft lenses became possible, and I was again, at least for 17 hours of the day, without glasses. I got my Hamill hair cut, finished school, and moved to California.

Time warp. Thirty something years. There have been all kinds of surgical improvements for eyesight, but they are not terribly reliable, and even if they were, soft contacts had served me well, but I was developing cataracts. My optometrist suggested that I didn't have to wait until I was in my 80s to have them repaired, they were causing weird coronas on lights, and it was getting annoying to drive at night for the glare of the headlights of other cars. And, she said, by the way, that will be covered by your insurance so, if you want to pay to have your myopia repaired at the same time, that's something you might want to consider.

"You mean," I thought, "not have to worry about where my glasses were in case of fire, earthquake or other natural disaster?" "You mean, being able to wake up in the morning and not have everything look like it had thick gauze on it?"

Oh, yes, there were people who said, "Whoa now, these things don't always work."  But once again, I was highly motivated. I had been a child, a young woman, a middle aged woman, and now an "ahem" woman of a certain age, with lousy vision, but I could have better vision now, at this late stage, then I ever had in my whole life.

And so, I did it. To see the world was like seeing a restored Renaissance painting, the colors vibrant in a way that no contact lens had ever made possible. With contact lenses I never could easily see signs until I was up close to them. Now I could see blocks away. I remember being amazed at the depth of color of the stained glass in my church. There was perfect visual clarity. An even more astounding miracle, for in 1968, the idea that I would ever have normal sight unaided (I did not have the presbyopia aspect changed; wearing reading glasses never bothered me) for distance, was impossible.

Six years passed since that profound change in my existence. Naturally, I became a little nonchalant about it, taking having regular sight for granted, so much so, that though I noticed things didn't seem so vibrant anymore, particularly in my left eye, I assumed that it was just that the novelty had worn off. I hadn't been back to my regular optometrist, as I no longer work and go downtown where the optometrist was (in the building in which I worked), and because except for off the rack reading glasses, I saw fine. I breezed through my reading test at the DMV more than a year ago.

Then I noticed in reading, one eye seemed really hazy, and I wondered if cataracts grow back. So I went on line, and saw that no, they don't grow back, but there is this thing that is loosely called a "second cataract". I decided, a rarity for me, maybe because I was highly motivated, not to overthink it, and just make an appointment with my old surgeon's office, Assil Eye Institute in Beverly Hills.

All was well, except (and if anyone is interested what gets cloudy is explained on the net) I needed my implanted lens polished. This is considered a common "complication" of cataract surgery I have since read.  But if this is the only complication I ever have medically, I wouldn't complain. Now, I remembered that when I wore lenses, they would get dirty, and cloudy, but of course then I could pop them out, clean them and that would be that. These post cataract, post myopia repair eyes didn't allow for that. I didn't ask how they would be polished if they were attached to my eye. I'd wait and find out when I got there, if that indeed was the problem.

It is called a laser capsulotomy. Yes, it is done with a laser. Dr. Assil said, just as he finished the two or three minute procedure that though I thought I was seeing mighty fine (not his words) with my right eye, in fact, I would now notice that it was the left eye that was clear and the right a bit cloudy.

Image result for polishing an implanted lens

When I went outside, I remembered what I had felt when I had the original surgery. I had not realized that I had actually lost the vibrancy, the definition of of sky, and water, and object, and faces. And now I can't wait for the right eye to be done, in a few weeks.

A third miracle!

There is so much I hate about our technological world. I mean, a lot. But these things that can be done for teeth (I have implants and I tell you they are pretty amazing too), for eyes, for ears, for other parts of the body, that are purely wonders.

I so often look at the world (figuratively) with clouded eyes. But this experience has me seeing it with enormous gratefulness.  To man, and God, both.







Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Dad in School

When my father returned home from WWII, he finished high school, and on the GI Bill, he attended college at NYU. I realize how much I am like him when I read this piece, an exercise for the class in which he received only a B. His diatribe was early evidence of my father's tendency toward a certain verbal intensity, and sense of justice even in small things. He was bright, and impatient. He, and this is something I inherited, didn't much like criticism, and barely tolerated even reasonable critique.

But here, I kind of understand his pique. I had difficulty when I went back to school for a while, at 40, with professors whose life was safely inside the ivory tower, being firm and rule bound with people who worked in the outside world. That might not be fair, but there it is. I also share a tendency toward anger when I feel that justice is not being done.

Now my father seems to be referring to some incident that occurred before this particular piece. I sense the professor both sort of chastising my father for his expectations always to be given the highest grade, but also rather liking his assertions, and admiring him.

I happen to agree with the Professor, and if my dad were alive I think he'd be upset at me for saying it, that this wasn't one of my father's best pieces. But it is part of who he was, very long ago.





And I want to save what I can of him.

Monday, July 22, 2019

How Can You Tell If They Are Wearing Clothes--A Constantine Gochis Short Short Story

The little girl waited for the clerk to total her purchases.

"Five seventy-five," he announced.

She was not pleased.  She rummaged through the items separating them into three groups, and asked for the total of each.

The clerk was annoyed and the customers on the growing line were beginning to grumble with impatience.  Nevertheless, he accommodated the child.  He gave her three separate totals.

"I don't want these," she said peremptorily sweeping one set aside.  "I'll take these two." She pointed as she crumpled a set of bills in her hand.

There still was not enough to pay for the goods.

"What can I leave out," she said, to no one in particular--her computation skills seemed not quite up to the mathematics.

A final figure was arrived at with the grudging assistance of the clerk, but the end was not quite yet.

"I need a soda," said the little urchin, as she ran behind the counter and rummaged for a particular flavor.

"You can get a cold one over there," said the clerk, now thoroughly acclimated to the inevitable, though perhaps somewhat amused or charmed.

I turned in impatience to the lady behind me, and said:

:I've never met one of these little creatures I can abide even when they are less visible."

"You don't like children?" came the defensive reply.

"I have full confidence they'll grow up like the rest of us, and I'm not convinced I like grown ups any better." The woman bridled.

"Do you have children?" asked the defensive lady.

"Seven," I replied.

"Do you like them," she prodded.

"Perhaps one of them," I replied, but she's on trial perpetually.  If you want my opinion, the British of Charles Dickens' time had the right idea; "Ask for MORE and get the flat of a properly applied boot--and a couple of 'Bah Humbugs' for emphasis.

My peripheral vision caught a very alert little girl listening carefully. Her eyes were wide open, inquisitive, not angry or judgmental, only curious.

"Not this little girl," I hastened to proclaim.  "She is assertive, intelligent, knows what she wants or does not. Besides she is pretty," I added as a palliative.

"I happen to be a boy," the injured one announced as he gathered his purchases and departed.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

This Crummy Gaslighting Society


I hadn't planned on going to see "Rocketman" for a variety of reasons, but a friend of mine, who loved it, several times encouraged me to go and see it. So, today, having made a mistake about a medical appointment (the date thereof) feeling out of sorts and a bit reclusive, I thought it would be a great time to go to an afternoon movie. It just happened that "Rocketman" was playing in the local theater near my apartment.  I decided not to take my purse, and, perhaps foolishly for other reasons (like dropping dead on the street) and wanting to walk light, I took only my keys and my debit/credit card (it had my name on it, so if I did indeed drop dead I can easily be googled and identified). It just happened the movie was playing at 2, so perfect timing!

When I got to the theater, it was actually locked. I have never known a theater to be locked in the middle of the day, particularly with a movie to play in a half hour, but I waited on a chair someone had thoughtfully left in the shade, for the doors to be opened. The place was basically empty, and so I was first, well, only, on line.

I told the attendant what movie I wished to see and handed her my debit card. She said, "Can I see your ID?"  Well, I didn't have it as I have already mentioned above. I couldn't see a problem, except maybe that I could be using the thing fraudulently, in which case, my bad, and I'd have to forget about it. But that's not what she said. She said that they were required by their alcohol license to see everyone's ID.  Really. To buy a ticket for a movie? Well, I do hate that because of fear of whatever, lawsuits, offense, it is now the rule for places to ask people well over 21 for proof of proper age to buy alcohol. But I was buying a ticket for a movie. I promised I would not be buying alcohol. I got angry. I asked for the manager. He said the same thing. I asked to see their license. He declined. I was told that this was a law of my particular City.

I was beside myself. The world is fighting over whether people have to show identification in all sorts of, well, more weighty circumstances. Fine. I am not here to argue that. But when so called rules are applied inconsistently and with obvious illogical support, it is nothing more than insanity if not demonstrative of a decaying, oppressive society. I hear some of my best friends laughing at my outrage. But here is the thing, we once individuals are like the lobster put into a pot of pleasantly cool water. The water gets warm, and then hot, and oops, the lobster dies. We are dying as others create and apply rules for our daily goings and comings, ever so selectively and not with any rational basis.

I decided to make a few calls. First I called the City's number. I explained the situation. The person said that this had nothing to do with the City. But that was what I was told. The man was amused, for clearly I am very stupid. You see, when these things happen, there really is no one responsible, no answers or effort at giving answers. So I called the State Alcohol folk. The woman on the phone was nice enough. She had not heard of such a rule, and I offered to let her speak to the young person at the desk (who wasn't going to do that). She called the manager again. Meanwhile the nice staff person on the phone promised to talk to her supervisor.

Now, this time, the manager was actually quite nice and showed me the license and the section that he proposed gave them the authority to require ID. Except, suddenly, things changed and he was talking about the purchase of alcohol. I said, "So, I can buy a ticket as long as I don't seek to buy alcohol?" or something along those lines. "So, I CAN buy a ticket?"

Yes. He began to explain that the young woman at the desk was just doing her job. But, that did not make sense, because I was buying a ticket, not a drink. I decided, though I was ready to explode and no longer in the mood to do anything, to let it go. I thanked the manager. I bought the ticket I had originally wanted to buy with the debit card I had first presented. I asked if I were allowed to buy food without ID. Yes.

Later, I had a message from the Alcohol state person. Very nice message. She said that I could call, but the questions I had were a matter between me and the movie theater. There might be restrictions on their license that prevented me from entering if I didn't have ID.

Here's what I think. I think, ultimately, the young person at the cashier line made a mistake in asking for ID when I was buying a ticket. Somehow, perhaps, she misinterpreted when one is asked for ID. It's idiotic to ask an obviously over 21 person for ID, but that at least would make vague sense. When I didn't let it go, some place between my going out to make calls and coming back, the mistake was realized, and it wasn't about buying a ticket, but about actually buying alcohol.

I probably should just have gone home to do my fuming. But I went to the movie. Perhaps I would have liked it more if I saw it another time.

Now, I know. Even if I have a million dollars in cash when I go to the movies I better have my ID. The signs are everywhere.