Friday, November 1, 2013

Be Gay.

Who remembers "The Flintstones" theme song? [hand raised]....

When you're with the Flintstones,
You'll have a Yabba-dabba-doo time,
A dabba-doo time.
We'll have a gay, old time!

Well then, that was 1960.  A time when the word 'gay' meant happy.  If that show was produced today, the theme song wouldn't be exactly the same.  Words change their meanings over the years.  In the early part of the 20th century, making love to a woman merely meant wooing her.  Later, it would mean something completely different.
The melody of "Deck the Hall" is taken from "Nos Galan" ("New Year's Eve"), a traditional Welsh New Year's Eve carol published in 1794.
There are plenty of examples of the word meaning "carefree," until the mid-1970s.  Perhaps it had a secret double-meaning?  An unspoken, implied meaning that was only included in hip publications and books - with a sly wink toward the sky - where a scant percentage of the population knew exactly what the author intended?
Whatever - nowadays, the word has only one connotation, that of sexuality.  It's a shame that the meaning has transformed itself, but a bigger shame that corporate America feels it is necessary to replace the word so that our sensibilities will not be compromised, as they have with so many other things during the Holiday Season.
One wonders what Hallmark had to fear from selling a sweater with the phrase "gay apparel" on it.  One also wonders why they would choose that particular phrase to begin with.  Of all the P.C. Christmas-themed things they could have chosen, why bother to choose something that they would have to alter?  It's a curious decision.
Hallmark defended the change in lyrics.
"When the lyrics to 'Deck the Halls' were translated from Gaelic and published in English back in the 1800's, the word 'gay' meant festive or merry," according to a statement released Wednesday. "Today it has multiple meanings, which we thought could leave our intent open to misinterpretation."
So, why bother, then?  Pick something else. Leave us alone to be gay and celebrate Christmas, if that's what we want to do.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Mystery of Life.

How can it cost less to mail me the ticket than it costs to print it at home or hold it at Will Call?

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Let's put that ugliness behind us.

Since you're still with me after Sunday's post, I'd have to say that there isn't anything else I could write that would offend you, so I'll just go after one of the more mundane topics rolling around my head.
Comcast (or Xfinity as they like to be known, for some reason) recently raised my cable bill $30. (Mine and everyone else's).  This immediately followed an incredible offer they extended to me to bundle-up my Internet with my television and telephone.  For the record (if there is one) I do not have a land line telephone, and I'm not particularly interested in having one, but their sales pitch included the phone, so it's part of the deal.
The rate increase negated the incredible deal, and more importantly, made me think more than twice about the luxury of paying for television.
It hearkened me back to the days when television was free.  Circa 1980, cable television invaded my neighborhood.  For the bargain price of $9.99 a month I could have access to 36 channels and something called Prism, which broadcast the Phillies, Flyers and Sixers - commercial-free.  Yes, that's right, commercial free.
As with the fable of the camel, once they got their nose under the tent, it wasn't long before the entire camel was in the tent, too.  Prism quickly became a commercial station.  The 36 channels turned into 1500 and something called hi-definition television took over our lives.  With the necessary cable packages and such, it now costs in the neighborhood of $140 a month to watch television.
That means that state-of-the-art television costs 14 times what it cost 30-some years ago. There aren't too many things (or any?) that cost 14 times what they cost in 1980.  Get back to me on that. (and no, it's not cigarettes, but they're close)
Between cable television and the $90 per month bill I get for my cellular telephone, I'm paying what could amount to a car payment for two things that I wasn't paying for not that long ago.  Oh sure, you youngsters in the audience don't know what I'm talking about, and you seem to take great glee in your attachment to your cellular device (Not really a telephone) and if you would probably pay even more than you already do to keep it.
For those of you scoring at home, that's over $2,700 for two convenience items.  With the proliferation of public Wi-Fi service, is my cellular device worth any more than a regular cell phone?  I could buy an iPad for about $600 and glom-off some free Internet somewhere, or better yet, use the Comcast Internet service that I'm already paying for.
It's more difficult to get around the cable television thing.  There's Hulu and Netflix, but those cost money too, and they don't have all the content you may want.  Apple TV is available, but between that and the other subscriptions you'd need to by-pass Comcast, I doubt that the savings would be enough to make it all worthwhile.  And I'd be willing to bet that there's a group of accountants at the Comcast Headquarters doing that math, too.
Face it, gang. They've got us by the balls.  Unless, of course, you have some and are willing to live without some of the things that we have been convinced (by ourselves, mostly) that we can't live without.
I'll get back to you on that.

Sunday, October 27, 2013

The Things We Humans Do.

There's something on my mind, and since the title of this blog suggests that I let it out - here it goes.
If you're offended by sensitive topics, click here to be sent someplace where your needs can be better met.  Otherwise, read on.
I wander around the Internet.  It's what the Internet is for - wandering.  I stumble upon things that perhaps I shouldn't stumble upon, but so ... It's the reason we have fingers and free will.  One of the things I have stumbled upon in my travels is a web site devoted to homosexual men and their experiences with other men.
One of the interesting activities they indulge in is using their tongue on another man's anus.  I am as liberal as the next guy, but the practice of licking another man's ass isn't something that remotely interests me.
The problem I  have with it is that I do not associate it with the idea that men can be sexually attracted to other men.  I know the phenomenon exists, and I can actually appreciate it, but the idea that one can put ones tongue on someone else's anus is a practice that I find neither sexually provocative or peculiar to any sexual preference.
There it is, in all its glory - a man with his tongue on another man's ass.  The problem is that I would not do that to a woman, and as a heterosexual, I do not find the practice remotely stimulating sexually.  What I do find it is repulsive, and regardless of ones sexual preference, I'd guess that others would, too.
So, how is it that homosexual men could engage in this and find it sexually stimulating?  It's part of the homosexual experience that I am intensely curious about.
Perhaps I will meet someone with whom I can discuss this practice and find my answers.  Until then, I wonder why it is considered sexual, let alone desirable.  Lick their fingers, toes, ears or other outer body parts.  The anus?  Not really appealing.
So, there.