Just two days ago I noted how the icons of my past were fast disappearing. Well two more today- Farrah Fawcett and Micheal Jackson. Two very different people but both icons of a better time. Farrah's death was especially poignant to me as it's reminiscent of my wife's- first being joyed that she had been "cured" only to be crushed when the cancer returns and then a long painful futile battle hoping for the miracle that never comes. I knew when I heard Farah's cancer had metastasized to the liver it was only a matter of time. Beauty and fame does not impress the Grim Reaper.
Micheal's death was not so expected, but at least he got to go the easy way. Just lose consciousness- drift into sleep and it's over. Between the two it would sure be my choice when the time comes.
First Ed McMahon, and now Farrah and Michael Jackson. From the news coverage, I knew that Farrah's death was only a matter of time. There were all these recent programs on her battle with cancer and the inevitability of her death, hoping against hope. At least she went out fighting.
In Jackson's case, that came as a real surprise to me. Last night, I took a walk in the hot sun and stopped at a convenience store to get a drink. Standing in the checkout line, with my radio headset on, I first heard the news. (They broke in on Clark Howard, so I knew it must be either a possible thunderstorm or something truly significant! We are obsessed with weather here, fo some reason).
As I resumed walking, I kept think back to the times I'd seen Jackson perform (on TV, never live) and how my ex-wife really enjoyed his music. I wasn't really a fan, and like many people saw his antics and changing appearance as really bizarre, culminating in the allegations of sexual child abuse. I'd thought, "This is a good example of how fame and wealth can make people behave very wierd." It definitely surprised me that he died so young -- I guess the full story will gradually come out (e.g., his apparent long-time heart problems, medications he took for pain). Nonetheless, even though I wasn't a follower of his music or activities, it was sad to get the news.
Well I thought Jackson made some damn good music back in the early 1980s. That was a great time for pop music. MTV had just appeared and now you could actually see artists performing complete with elaborate choreography- and Jackson's videos were among the best- setting the standard for others to follow.
I don't know what happen to music-videos- they don't seem to make them much anymore and those that I do see are pathetic compared to those made back in the 1980s. Like so many things. Indeed, except for some amazing technology we have today- computers, cellphones, GPS, digital cameras- I don't know of anything that wasn't better years ago. Certainly music was.
As I think we have discussed before, there is always good music coming out in every decade. Today it is just harder to find and isn't played on most commercial radio stations.
But the 1983-1986 era was the last time there was a lot of great music on top 40 radio. The mid 1960s were probably the best time for top 40 music with the mid 1980s coming in second.
It was really the last period for mass appeal music that appealed to a wide range of demographics.
I hated disco especially at the time. Disco was very much a producer's medium which makes it very different from rock which is more of an artist's medium and country which is more about the song. I can appreciate the craft of a well produced disco song more today than I did at the time.
Disco did one great thing for me. Because I disliked it so much, it was the first time in my life that I explored music outside of what was on top 40 radio. I started listening to genres like country, bluegrass, folk, blues, big band etc. and got interested in pop music from earlier eras. That interest led directly to my current job, so in some ways I'm glad disco came along and ruined top 40 radio in the 1970s.
I thought the early disco stuff- Abba, Donna Summers, Gloria Gaynor, BeeGees was very good. Then a bunch of redundant no-name stuff came out with just a heavy beat that was monotonous and boring and thats what killed it. A FM I was doing contract work for went disco in late 1978- even I knew disco was on the way out- but nobody asked me- I'm just the fix-it guy. After eight months they gave up and went country.
Well I liked most all pop music until rap and hip-hop came in. I even would listen to some of my parents records from the '30s & '40s. I wish the big-bands were still around. And I even thought rap was ok at first until it got so redundant and vile. There may be good music around now but I don't know where- all I listen to now is the old stuff. I just wish there was a real "MTV" again- showing those great videos from the 1980s. Imagine how great they would be now in HD wide-screen and Dolby 5.1 sound!
I don't remember Gale Storm or "My Little Margie", but I did come across a news story that impressionist Fred Travalena has died. He was just 66 y/o. I recall seeing him years ago on the Johnny Carason Show and on the "Love Boat", and he was very entertaining. He had a knack for voices, facial expressions and mimicing signature gestures of celebs. So many people dying these days . . troubling.
I surprised you don't remember Gale Storm as her show was re-run on channels like "TV-land" even fairly recently. She also had a later show "Oh Susanna" in which she played a cruise ship's social director. I never watch it much. Then she disappeared from TV but was busy in the community theather circuits.
Another TV name- not old- but Billy Mays- who was always doing TV informercials- died this weekend too. He was only 50. I never watch that stuff but from apparently he had quite a fan club from comments I've heard.
It's weird how people are dropping like flies here lately.
I better go check my insurance policies.
I wish I had hung onto her "All of Me" Playboy video which I sold a couple of years ago for about $30.
No offence to her, but she basically made a career out of having promminent nipples. I even saw an interview with one of her agents, who said that red swimsuit poster was "all about nipples" as his reason for it's success.
Farrah was even quoted as saying that Charlies Angels went to number one and the only reason it did was because non of the stars wore bras.
Actually I didn't think Farah's face was that attractive, especially as she got older. But she did represent a time that I very much miss now. And I certainly had great sympathy for courageous battle against cancer as my wife died in a similar way and it's a hell of a way for anyone to go.
There was a movie she appeared in where she was briefly topless -- I concur that about all she had there was priominent nipples . . not my preference.
Recently, I saw a Barbara Walters interview with one of the producers of "Charlie's Angels". Barbara said that the show made people see women in a different light, and the producer agreed, noting that these female characters were shown doing a job usually reserved for men and that this was ground-breaking. And I thought, "Give me a break!. 'Charlie's Angels' was the orginial TV T & A show. It wasn't about 'breaking gender boundries', it was about titilation!"
Bob, what is it about nipples that bother you? And I'm asking because I know you are not alone- many people seem disturbed by prominent nipples and I've never understood this.
There is just something unattractive to me about big/long nipples. I generally don't care for big features on a woman, period. "Femininity" is, to me, reflected by fine, smallish features more than large features. Large noses, eyes, ears, big butts, bulky arms, thick legs . . etc . . on a woman are all are less attractive to me. One exception being the breast itself, as reflected in that Shania Twain line, "Bigger is the best, but only in the chest") Even in that, there is a limit: Firm C cups beat saggy D+ cups anytime IMO. In Farrah's case, the combination of small breasts with prominent nipples is a turn off. Reminds me of that scene in the movie, "Beneath the Valley of The Dolls" (old Russ Meyers sexploitation flick) when the she-male fondles her long nipples before severing the guy's head -- it was just creepy. I know people don't pick their body parts. Still, I have definite preferences. Let's just say that it was a good thing that Farrah was otherwise attractive.
Well I've always been fascinated about how people can have such different perceptions of things. Yahoo is full of all sorts of strange fetish groups- and I suppose some would say my freeballers forum was a fetish thing- it's hard to say when a "preference" becomes a fetish- and why what is a turn-on to one person is a turn-off to another. I happen to like nipple bumps and the unconstrained movement of unfettered breasts and yet I know many people don't. Who can explain it.
This is probably getting into a theological discussion that is too complex for this board.
Most evangelical Christians would believe that any sexual activity outside of the marriage between one man and one woman is a sin.
God creates all of us with unique talents and different challenges. Whether we use those talents or overcome those challenges in a manner that is pleasing to God is totally up to us.
Now wait a minute Branden- I'm not going to let you evade my question by saying it's "too complex for this board". You said "God made each individual a unique person" which would include their individual proclivities. Why would he give one guy a easy to follow "safe" desire like to marry a woman but gives the next guy one that violates Biblical teachings? How is that fair? Shouldn't the test for "morality" be equal for everyone?
Forget it Nat, you will never get logical answers from religion or religious types. They just declare a book of poetry as "God's will" without one shred of evidence that the bible is divinely inspired.
It is difficult to explain on a message board since you don't know the theological or the philosophical backgrounds of the readers and something like this can touch on very complex subjects like free will, pre destination, original sin, etc.
As Christians, we know that God's judgement is perfect, but as men we might not understand His ways. No one can explain why God creates certain people with musical or athletic talent or a higher i.q. We also don't know why God creates some people with Down Syndrome.
We do know that God loves all of his creation and that he wants to have a relationship through Jesus with all men.
Well Brandon, I guess Chris was right. This is all that I'm going to get out of you about this.
This is the problem I have with religion- I try to keep a open mind about it- knowing that it's widely accepted by many people I respect- but at the same time I'm use to dealing with things that follow logic- that work according to the laws of physics so when I'm presented with principles that don't make sense to me my mind has trouble dealing with it.
In the substance abuse field, a popular line of thought is that some people have inherent predispositions toward addiction and others not so much. This could explain why some people have exposure to a substance and it gradually comes to control and damage their lives while others have the same exposure and don't have such problems (or explain why some people can drink plenty and often and don't have a problem with it, while others can drink less and less often but it causes them all sorts of problems). So, did God create some people to be addicts and others not (I've heard many clients express this: "Why me? Why can't I drink beer like other people and not have these problems?")
The answer I've often heard is that God gives us tests in the form of various challenges -- we don't all get the same things on our plate. Maybe God sees within us the things we need to improve upon and he custom designs our challenges. I prefer to think HE does not take sure a direct role (e.g., Why would He choose to leave a loving couple childless while allowing those who beat and molest children to conceive at will?) I prefer to think that God created everything, and designed natural laws as governance, gave this world a spin and said, "We will see what you do with the opportunity." This is more palatable to me than thinking that some persons He selects for all manner of woe while others get off relatively unencumbered.
As for homosexuality, I tend to think that this is part of the natural variation in the world, rather than as a disorder per se. Remember the Bell Curve? Along any continuum, we tend to see unrepresentative values (each end of the curve), while the bulk of subjects fall within a middle range on that continuum. Regarding homosexuality, we know that to be a minority position -- it falls within a "tail" on the Bell curve. The other "tail" may represent those people who are strictly, in thought and action, attracted to the opposite sex. The central, more prominent concentration of persons fall within the heterosexual range that may include, overtly or covertly, some realization that there is some attraction to the same sex. That may include bisexuality, or normally-hetero people who "experiment", seek adventure or choose affairs with same-sex persons, though they still consider themselves heterosexual. It may simply be (as is true with me) that one can appreciate the attractiveness of a same-sex person while not having any interest in pursuing such contact.
(I digress, but I have had the experience of seeing a woman who is just not feminine or attractive to me at all. Maybe she has bad skin or teeth, maybe her hygiene care isn't the best, maybe her speech is crude. She just doesn't fill the "attractive" bill. Then there is a male who is well-groomed, well-spoken, clean and dresses nicely, possesses a certain charm. While I don't personally have any desire to sleep with him, I can understand those who want to, and don't understand why people want to sleep with the woman. As I put it, "Possession of primary sexual characteristic -- a vagina -- is necessary but not sufficient criteria for me to feel sexual desire. There must be secondary sexual characteristics that, for me, define "sexually-attractive woman")
None of this is revelation (and I apologize for the dissertation). We see the above in daily life. Where am I going with this? Just that I can acknowledge that some people have different sexual interests (including fetishes, S & M, cross-dressing, etc.) and it doesn't necessarily mean they are "sick." A hetero person who abuses a child is sick (cruel, just mean, whatever). The question, for me, is: Given this variation, what rules in the society? In most respects, the idea has been that "what rules" is what represents the norm. And, the Bell Curve shows that heterosexuality IS the norm. I think tolerance of others is a good thing, but I don't think a society can take such an eclectic approach to rules/law and mores. I think a stable society takes a stand that "this goes and this doesn't", as opposed to an "anything goes" approach. So, while I may individually have preferences for "what goes", maybe a sizable majority disagree with me and don't want to allow that. I have to learn to live with it or be perpetually frustrated and put upon.
Wow Bob, that looks like a college thesis! I'm honored that you would spend so much time trying to answer my question. But I still don't see anything in the creation process can not be explained as a natural secular phenomenon. Scientists have a pretty good understanding now of how genes and DNA work and have already genetically re-engineered animals and crops. There was a thing in the news here last week about how you can now purchase orange trees that have been engineered to be resist canker which is a dreaded disease in these parts which can wiped out entire orange groves. And there was a story about how other scientists have created sperm from stem cells. At the rate they are going it seems only a matter of time that before they will be creating life in the laboratory. Rather this is wise or not is another matter. But I have yet see an example of something that can only be explained as a product of a divine deity.
Nat, I would probably include your examples under the category, "Things God allows Man to know or do, to let him (Man) find out his actual limits". You don't have to think or remember too hard to recall examples of Man thinking he knew enough and it ended badly, to Man's regret (One ready example is the U.S. space program: We keep thinking we have it all figured out, but the simplest thing can go wrong and mess up everything).
I suspect that, if Men are so foolish as to allow experimentation into creating new life, there will be many more disappointments than successes. I don't foresee Man being able to do anything more than MANIPULATE existing life, as actually creating life would require taking the necessary chemicals and making them into a living creature. HELL, we can't even stop living people with various disease conditions from dying. In those cases, you START with life and try to keep it going . . but our best minds fail at doing that. So, I will not be holding my breath on "creating life".
When cloning started, there were all these ethical concerns and calls for limits upon the technology. Scientists countered with, "We aren't going to try to create a human being, but wouldn't it be great if we could clone ourselves replacement parts?" All these images of cloned kidneys, hearts, lungs and livers had some nodding "Yes, Go!" But many still weren't sure if we should do that. Along comes Bob, with a suggestion: "Why not start out cloning hair follicles for balding men, and perfect techniques for more critical parts?" I thought of this because (Ok, I could be a customer) the current technique for hair grafting uses the man's own limited supply of hair. Maybe he NEEDS the hair where it is and not just moved around. Maybe he needs MORE hair. Who could be concerned if a man has his own hair follicles cloned for implantation into his own head (and, of course, at his own expense). And, given all the men (and women too) who currently get hair transplants. as well as those who rub ointments on their scalp, the potential client base seems large. But, when I wrote to doctors with my idea, they all brushed it off as non-workable. But they never said why it wouldn't work. If they plan to clone a heart, and if it failed . . UH-OH! But your hair follicles die -- you still live. Can't even clone hair!!
As for faith, Nat, it is exactly that. Believe or not. (But don't believe science provides infallible answers either, as that too is a matter of faith in its own way. The study this year that "proves" X will be contradicted by next year's studying "proving" non-X, etc.)
"principles that don't make sense to me my mind has trouble dealing with it."
Nat, you've proven why it is hard to have this conversation with people on a message board.
I have no idea how much you know about theology or Christian apologetics, therefore it is hard to frame an answer that can be widely understood by a general audience.
It takes some background to understand these deeper concepts of Christianity. It is not something you can explain in simple terms like why
2 +2=4.
It is similar to how I don't understand radio or tv transmitters, so you'd have a hard time explaining an engineering concept here if you didn't know what kind of background the readers here had on that subject.
Branden, all this sounds very complicated and I think I would have an easier time explaining how a TV transmitter works to you than you explaining Christianity to me.
