skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I just received an email from an Ocean reader who also maintains his own blog. Recently he linked to my post about the philosophers’ morality quiz. Today he writes: “According to my site meter, somebody found my website after googling "camic sex." I wonder what they were looking for.”
Now listen here, googlers, I am a respected member of the community. Yes, I occasionally throw around a word that is thought to belong to the “less than savory” lexicon, but why ever would you think that there is something googlable out there that would combine those two words?? I am so CLEAN (especially at the beginning of a new semester, when I know that more than an average number of prospective students are availing themselves of the google function in their search for any info about their future teachers).
[Yes, there are other Camics out there in this vast land. I doubt VERY MUCH that they are at the root of this search. For one thing, no other Camic on this planet blogs as a Camic. I checked.]
My response to the email? I wrote: At least they weren't googling "camic weird sex..." (The post included my name and a forewarning that the quiz contained questions about kinky stuff.)
From Newsweek, with an Ocean point added:
1. Michelangelo completed his final frescoes, in the Vatican’s Pauline Chapel, at 75.
2. Benjamin Franklin invented bifocal glasses at 78 to help correct his own poor vision.
3. Giuseppe Verdi finished ‘Falstaff,’ his final opera, just eight months shy of his 80th birthday.
4. Georgia O’Keeffe continued painting well into her 90s, despite failing eyesight.
5. Frank Lloyd Wright worked on the Guggenheim Museum until his death at 91.
6. Martha Graham danced until 76, then kept choreographing 20 years longer.
7. Nina Camic began envisioning her magnum opus at the age of 51.
(-- Chris Crowley, 70-year old co-author of “Younger Next Year: A Guide to Living Like 50 Until You’re 80 and Beyond,” featured in this week’s Newsweek)
Quite a number of news sources are discussing the new eating guidelines published by the government just this week. And, Newsweek is devoting almost an entire issue to the topic of diet, genes and the Science of Nutrition.
But really, is anyone saying anything new about staying healthy? Oh sure, there are a few tweaks here and there on the advice offered a year ago, or even five years ago. But if we followed the advice of the five-year-old reports we’d all be fine right now. That broccoli may be super beneficial to some and only very beneficial to others – that’s scientifically intriguing, but if you are looking for tips on what will help set your life on a good course, for Pete’s sake, just eat your broccoli. And exercise. [Is anyone going to argue with “Harry and Chris” that “living a sedentary life is not just lazy, it’s lunacy?”]
Rereading articles on virtuous eating habits and an active lifestyle does serve a purpose (must get more of that broccoli!), but it is actually amazing how consistent the message has been for any number of years: more fruits and veggies, more grains, less fat, less sugar, get off of that couch... sounds as familiar as the commercials for Little Debbie cakes and snacks that are now making a comeback.
Of course, the British tabloids had a field day with the photo of Prince Harry at a costume “bad taste” party. His German military attire with a swastika arm band drew immediate criticism from the press and outrage from many. (A party-goer had a camera with a cell phone – ahhh, technology!) A personal statement from Prince Harry himself is expected. An emailer sent me a note this morning wondering what pushes a costume into the acceptable range? Obviously objects of terror are the stuff of dress-up: Satan, Dracula, a mobster – that’s expected. But Bin Laden? A Nazi? You’ve crossed the line. It was said today on the news that this event will be there to haunt Harry for the rest of his life.
So why is it that I wasn’t shocked to read the story of the costume? Is it because I think that the British tolerance level for offbeat jokes of this nature is higher than our own? Yesterday, as an addendum to my post on Blair's dwindling hair, a reader sent a link to a photo from the Blair campaign back in 2001, when the Tories attempted to discredit the Labor Party. Would this have been an acceptable campaign ad here, or would it have backfired? [I think the latter.]
