Business scheduling does not just happen. It takes planning. Its cost money.
This year 2013, Christmas occurred on a Wednesday, smack in the middle of a work week. It meant many if most people did not want to concentrate on working. There is shopping and preparation before the holiday. There are returns to make and more shopping to do after the holiday. In The World of Doing Things other than Commerce, it is a complete waste of a week’s work. It is also hard to have a spiritual holiday three days either way from a Sunday.
Halloween can come on any day of the week and thus disrupts business scheduling in its own way.
Thanksgiving is a little better always coming on the last Thursday of November – but why on Thursday in November?
Christmas can come any day of the week and thus disrupts business scheduling on a big scale. At Christmas time 2013, the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas was rather shorter than usual and caused a number of problems, notably a foul up in UPS and FedEx that caused them to deliver numerous packages scheduled for before Christmas delivery after Christmas.
The time has come to legislate the new Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Halloween should always come on the last Friday. The last Friday should be the Halloween party night and the Saturday next should be the Trick or Treating Night. This holiday should always occur on a weekend.
Rescheduling Thanksgiving for business purposes has a long, distinguished history. According to an entry in Wikipedia:
“On December 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a joint resolution of Congress changing the national Thanksgiving Day from the last Thursday in November to the fourth Thursday. Two years earlier, Roosevelt had used a presidential proclamation to try to achieve this change, reasoning that earlier celebration of the holiday would give the country an economic boost.”
In the 21st Century, Thanksgiving should be the third Friday. Thus – we will have three days of work, maybe four depending on travel plans. The holiday comes at the end of the week. Then, the Christmas shopping season can start on Black Saturday. The holiday is also two days from a Sunday for the celebration of the spiritual aspects of Thanksgiving.
In the 21st Century, Christmas should be a movable feast like Easter. We know that the Christmas celebration on 25 December does not reflect reality on the date of Jesus’s birth. The scripture evidence would suggest a spring birth date. Christ’s mass got moved to 25 December for symbolic purposes. 25 December came after the Winter Solstice, so it had natural light and darkness symbolism. Ancients co-opted old pagan Roman midwinter festivals called 'Saturnalia' and 'Dies Natalis Solis Invicti.’ They took place in December around this date — so it was a time when people already celebrated things.
In the 21st Century, Christmas should be celebrated on the fourth Sunday of December. This would then emphasize the spiritual nature of the holiday. The official federal secular American Commercial Wintertime Festival holiday should be celebrated the next Monday. Therefore, the last shopping day would always fall on a Saturday; the day off would always occur at the first of a week. The big after Christmas shopping day would always be on a Tuesday and business would have four work days.
Only one exception in this plan: These particular dates should never fall on a January 1.
Calendaring business is neither easy nor cheap, but this plan would somewhat uncomplicate three holidays almost in a row in as many months. The next step would be to figure out how to de-emphasize commerce profit margins from the 62 days of the American Commercial Wintertime Festival and spread them out thorough the buying year.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? -- ABOUT SAME SEX MARRIAGE
On his birthday, it would be interesting to ask What Would Jesus Do? What would Jesus do about same-gender marriage?
It is, of course, risky to put words in the mouth of deity --- though humans have been doing that since the beginning.
The New Testament gospels suggests that Jesus was an orthodox conservative on sexual behavior. He was also orthodox conservative on the issue of divorce. He did not do complex rationalizations on either point.
On the subject of homosexuality, the New Testament records no comments from Jesus. The Bible has seven references to homosexuality, but they are found in the Old Testament and in Paul’s writings. To put this in perspective, the Bible has hundreds of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth. The Old Testament required a death penalty on dozens of activities — not just murder and homosexuality.
The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are both silent on homosexuality.
Acts 17 may hint at how Jesus and his associates in the Godhead might view this development in human marriage. The King James version renders it this way –
29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”
This is how the New Standard Revised version renders the point –
29 “Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals.
30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
“God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, but now he commands all everywhere to repent . . . .”
Dr Andrew Weil, from the scientific medical perspective, put ignorance of human sexuality this way:
“We think about sex a great deal, yet live in appalling ignorance of its nature and best uses. Even on the most practical level, there is little information to assist us. Most if us struggle to come to terns with this drive without help. Trustworthy guides are seldom found.” – Habits chapter of Natural Health Natural Medicine, p. 161
We wonder and speculate. If and when alien beings arrive on Earth, will they understand the concept of male and female and marriage? Would aliens understand a distinction between opposite gender and same gender sexual activity?
We wonder and speculate. At what point does God considers a couple married ? Why does God see a distinction between married and unmarried sexuality — and why? Does God see a distinction in heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity? Is some of sex or all of it “Ick Factor” to them?
The answer to "What would Jesus Do" in this situation is the same answer to the question in all other situations. The answer is not found in old books, but in the process of continuing revelation. The
God’s love for us is unqualified. However, unqualified love does not mean God is under any particular obligation to like everything we do on any particular subject. This is why “judgement” gets mentioned in scriptures often. This helps explain why the afterlife reward system comes with varying grades and types. That we will get what we want in this life and beyond is a good blessing for this Christmas day.
It is, of course, risky to put words in the mouth of deity --- though humans have been doing that since the beginning.
The New Testament gospels suggests that Jesus was an orthodox conservative on sexual behavior. He was also orthodox conservative on the issue of divorce. He did not do complex rationalizations on either point.
On the subject of homosexuality, the New Testament records no comments from Jesus. The Bible has seven references to homosexuality, but they are found in the Old Testament and in Paul’s writings. To put this in perspective, the Bible has hundreds of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth. The Old Testament required a death penalty on dozens of activities — not just murder and homosexuality.
The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants are both silent on homosexuality.
Acts 17 may hint at how Jesus and his associates in the Godhead might view this development in human marriage. The King James version renders it this way –
29 “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”
This is how the New Standard Revised version renders the point –
29 “Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals.
30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent,
31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
“God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, but now he commands all everywhere to repent . . . .”
Dr Andrew Weil, from the scientific medical perspective, put ignorance of human sexuality this way:
“We think about sex a great deal, yet live in appalling ignorance of its nature and best uses. Even on the most practical level, there is little information to assist us. Most if us struggle to come to terns with this drive without help. Trustworthy guides are seldom found.” – Habits chapter of Natural Health Natural Medicine, p. 161
We wonder and speculate. If and when alien beings arrive on Earth, will they understand the concept of male and female and marriage? Would aliens understand a distinction between opposite gender and same gender sexual activity?
We wonder and speculate. At what point does God considers a couple married ? Why does God see a distinction between married and unmarried sexuality — and why? Does God see a distinction in heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity? Is some of sex or all of it “Ick Factor” to them?
The answer to "What would Jesus Do" in this situation is the same answer to the question in all other situations. The answer is not found in old books, but in the process of continuing revelation. The
God’s love for us is unqualified. However, unqualified love does not mean God is under any particular obligation to like everything we do on any particular subject. This is why “judgement” gets mentioned in scriptures often. This helps explain why the afterlife reward system comes with varying grades and types. That we will get what we want in this life and beyond is a good blessing for this Christmas day.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
THE HILLS ARE ALIVE: Review of The Sound of Music Live
NBC’s advertising of The Sound of Music Live claims that no network has attempted a live broadcast of a musical in fifty years.
No wonder. If one has videotape to edit, use it.
The live broadcast of 5 December 2013, coming a few hours after the announcement of the death of Nelson Mandela, originated from a large converted warehouse space in Bethpage, New York. It puts me in mind of another memorable live TV musical production – the CBS live broadcast of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella starring Julie Andrews, directed by Ralph Nelson. On 31 March 1957, CBS broadcast this nationwide from a converted old Broadway theater, a very tight space in which all the cast had to work around stagehands and big color cameras in choreographed rotations. It was also an early color TV broadcast, available only in those markets that had a CBS station with color transmitters. Unfortunately, CBS made no arrangements for a color kinescope; color videotape was not available in 1957. Fortunately, a black and white kinescope preserved the event; even today, the broadcast looks like a nerve-wracking experience for everyone in front of cameras and behind.
I will say this for The Sound of Music Live. It had remarkably few bloopers or problems. I only noticed
1 someone’s off stage image appearing where it should not
and 2 a camera focusing on live TV. None one froze or passed out or projectile vomited on live TV. I bet it was tempting, though. The production’s most noticeable problem was star Carrie Underwood, who portrayed a very pretty, talented but dull “Maria Rainer.”
“Problem” is probably the wrong word. Carrie looked a treat, and she was closer to the right age for the role than was the original Maria Mary Martin, who was in her 40s in the first 1959 Broadway production. She sings beautifully, but she could not connect to the rest of the cast. However, her lack of acting ability certainly gave the right impression about the character Maria — an inexperience young woman from a convent school.
The rest of the Broadway-trained cast did much better with their roles. They are also used to any problems that will happen in a live performance, so if anything went wrong with them, I certainly did not notice it. The kids who portrayed the former Navy captain’s family did well all the way around.
One aspect impressed me strongly in this production: it got back to the thematic roots of the 1959 production. The 1965 movie, which aimed for the biggest audience possible, removed or de-emphasized some of the themes that Oscar Hammerstein, Howard Lindsay, Russel Crouse explored in the play.
The Sound of Music originally examined two themes –
1 the survival of the artistic ego against the controlling vindictive, dictatorial ego
and 2 the competition between the spiritual aspect of music and the commercial exploitation of music. It is true that the commercialization of music got the Von Trapp family out of the coliseum and out of Salzburg; it is the spiritual aspect of music that gave them the courage to flee into the mountains and out of the long night of Nazism.
The theme of ego response to the dictatorial controlling ego has in the play version a rather interesting illustration in a support character named “Rolf.”
Rolf is a clean-cut superrace boy who delivers ominous telegrams to the Von Trapp estate. He is, as the song puts it, “17 going on 18" years of age, and in this TV version gets performed by someone really close to that age. In the beginning of the play, he likes girls to the extent that he likes the oldest Von Trapp daughter, Liesl. They get what is called on Broadway the secondary ingenue love song set against the forest set. They even get to role down a grassy flowery incline together. Romantic by NBC standards.
The next time he appears to deliver a telegram, he has brought two other male Oesterreich Hitlerjugend playmates with him. They all wear lederhosen. Rolf obviously is more interested in them than in any girl. The third time he shows up, he portrays a downright surly attitude to Liesl; the Nazi cause is his only interest. In the last scene, he lets the family escape, so by the standards of Broadway 1959, he is still interested in Liesl, but not enough to escape with them. He and his boyfriends must have made beautiful cannon fodder.
How different conditions are on Broadway 2013 vs. 1959. It occurred to me that the modern stage director could use the forest setting nowadays to symbolize Maria’s spirituality [singing “The Sound of Music” at the beginning] and to symbolize Liesl’s young love [singing "16 going on 17"], and to symbolize the Von Trapp’s escape to freedom at the finale, and to illustrate the predatory egos of the male Oesterreich Hitlerjugend. They could have been discovered running through the forest, kicking up the edelweiss and marking their territories urinating on Maria’s tree.
It seems inconceivable, considering that the actress who played Elsa has such talent to play the witty, ironic worldly girlfriend, that the Captain preferred Maria to her. In what world?? However, the play makes clear, as the film did not, that she and Georg and Max all had political differences that effected their relationships. Elsa and Max willingly let controlling egos dictated to them. Georg would not.
I heard years ago the first Broadway cast audio recording album of The Sound of Music songs, so I knew what the original finale sounded like. The memory of that recording did nothing to prepare me for the power of that ending, what with the symbolism of both the Triumph of the Artistic Ego and the glorification of the spiritual aspect of music. I was reduced to tears.
The Sound of Music Live was not as horrible as it could have been. Still, it made me long for the good old days of videotape editing.
No wonder. If one has videotape to edit, use it.
The live broadcast of 5 December 2013, coming a few hours after the announcement of the death of Nelson Mandela, originated from a large converted warehouse space in Bethpage, New York. It puts me in mind of another memorable live TV musical production – the CBS live broadcast of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella starring Julie Andrews, directed by Ralph Nelson. On 31 March 1957, CBS broadcast this nationwide from a converted old Broadway theater, a very tight space in which all the cast had to work around stagehands and big color cameras in choreographed rotations. It was also an early color TV broadcast, available only in those markets that had a CBS station with color transmitters. Unfortunately, CBS made no arrangements for a color kinescope; color videotape was not available in 1957. Fortunately, a black and white kinescope preserved the event; even today, the broadcast looks like a nerve-wracking experience for everyone in front of cameras and behind.
I will say this for The Sound of Music Live. It had remarkably few bloopers or problems. I only noticed
1 someone’s off stage image appearing where it should not
and 2 a camera focusing on live TV. None one froze or passed out or projectile vomited on live TV. I bet it was tempting, though. The production’s most noticeable problem was star Carrie Underwood, who portrayed a very pretty, talented but dull “Maria Rainer.”
“Problem” is probably the wrong word. Carrie looked a treat, and she was closer to the right age for the role than was the original Maria Mary Martin, who was in her 40s in the first 1959 Broadway production. She sings beautifully, but she could not connect to the rest of the cast. However, her lack of acting ability certainly gave the right impression about the character Maria — an inexperience young woman from a convent school.
The rest of the Broadway-trained cast did much better with their roles. They are also used to any problems that will happen in a live performance, so if anything went wrong with them, I certainly did not notice it. The kids who portrayed the former Navy captain’s family did well all the way around.
One aspect impressed me strongly in this production: it got back to the thematic roots of the 1959 production. The 1965 movie, which aimed for the biggest audience possible, removed or de-emphasized some of the themes that Oscar Hammerstein, Howard Lindsay, Russel Crouse explored in the play.
The Sound of Music originally examined two themes –
1 the survival of the artistic ego against the controlling vindictive, dictatorial ego
and 2 the competition between the spiritual aspect of music and the commercial exploitation of music. It is true that the commercialization of music got the Von Trapp family out of the coliseum and out of Salzburg; it is the spiritual aspect of music that gave them the courage to flee into the mountains and out of the long night of Nazism.
The theme of ego response to the dictatorial controlling ego has in the play version a rather interesting illustration in a support character named “Rolf.”
Rolf is a clean-cut superrace boy who delivers ominous telegrams to the Von Trapp estate. He is, as the song puts it, “17 going on 18" years of age, and in this TV version gets performed by someone really close to that age. In the beginning of the play, he likes girls to the extent that he likes the oldest Von Trapp daughter, Liesl. They get what is called on Broadway the secondary ingenue love song set against the forest set. They even get to role down a grassy flowery incline together. Romantic by NBC standards.
The next time he appears to deliver a telegram, he has brought two other male Oesterreich Hitlerjugend playmates with him. They all wear lederhosen. Rolf obviously is more interested in them than in any girl. The third time he shows up, he portrays a downright surly attitude to Liesl; the Nazi cause is his only interest. In the last scene, he lets the family escape, so by the standards of Broadway 1959, he is still interested in Liesl, but not enough to escape with them. He and his boyfriends must have made beautiful cannon fodder.
How different conditions are on Broadway 2013 vs. 1959. It occurred to me that the modern stage director could use the forest setting nowadays to symbolize Maria’s spirituality [singing “The Sound of Music” at the beginning] and to symbolize Liesl’s young love [singing "16 going on 17"], and to symbolize the Von Trapp’s escape to freedom at the finale, and to illustrate the predatory egos of the male Oesterreich Hitlerjugend. They could have been discovered running through the forest, kicking up the edelweiss and marking their territories urinating on Maria’s tree.
It seems inconceivable, considering that the actress who played Elsa has such talent to play the witty, ironic worldly girlfriend, that the Captain preferred Maria to her. In what world?? However, the play makes clear, as the film did not, that she and Georg and Max all had political differences that effected their relationships. Elsa and Max willingly let controlling egos dictated to them. Georg would not.
I heard years ago the first Broadway cast audio recording album of The Sound of Music songs, so I knew what the original finale sounded like. The memory of that recording did nothing to prepare me for the power of that ending, what with the symbolism of both the Triumph of the Artistic Ego and the glorification of the spiritual aspect of music. I was reduced to tears.
The Sound of Music Live was not as horrible as it could have been. Still, it made me long for the good old days of videotape editing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
