Clara Bow, Time Traveler

I'm a member of several groups on Facebook for my personal edification and entertainment. One such group - Pre-Code Hollywood (1929-34): Sin on Celluloid - is a nifty little gathering of fans who concentrate and discuss filmmaking of 1929-34, a period featuring a more laid back atmosphere of film production.

Per film historian Thomas Doherty: "More unbridled, salacious, subversive, and just plain bizarre than what came afterwards, they look like Hollywood cinema but the moral terrain is so off-kilter they seem imported from a parallel universe." (If you're unfamiliar with pre-code film and what it's all about, you can learn tons here.)

Not only have I learned quite a bit about the era over the years, it's been a fun ride, giving me not only a new appreciation of films I've previously seen but ones I've never before been introduced to. Furthermore, I have been pleased and surprised at the depth of knowledge (not to mention the intelligence of the group's members), present company excepted, of course.

That is ... until last night.

Well, Sir, late last evening a photo of Clara Bow was posted on the group site. It showed her seaside sitting atop a wooden pylon with what appears to be an open box in her lap. Here is that photo:

My question is this: Does that look like anything but an open, wooden box to you?

Not to quite a few members of Sin On Celluloid, apparently. To a surprising number, it's something all together different ...

"She's holding a laptop?"

"That was my first thought, too!"

"The bottom's too deep, like a briefcase. Just the way it's resting on her lap, and the top is almost flat enough looking to appear like a screen. Just at first glance, that's what it almost appears ..."

"Is this one of those time traveler things? She is definitely checking her email on a laptop."

"Could be a microphone."

Look at that box again: Laptop computer? I guess ... if you haven't put your glasses on beforehand and you're blind as a bat.

But let's consider this, just in case you happen to be optically impugned. How about utilizing a little bit of common sense? The photo was posted on a site catering to a particular era, an era that didn't know what a laptop was. (Let alone a computer.)

Really, that's all you need to process to come to the conclusion that what Clara is holding couldn't possibly be a laptop.

So, what I'll do is be done with shaking my head in amazement at those comments and toodle along my merry way until such a time I may need to re-evaluate the common sense of some of the group's members. (Or at least their eyesight.)

.......... Ruprecht ( STOP )

Order ... There Must Be Order

I saw this this morning:

I did the quick calculation in my head and got the answer right away.

Then, I went down Frustration Lane ... better known as the "comments" section of the posting. 

And I let out a trio of sighs and committed a several discouraging head shakes in the first 10 seconds.

Did no one learn the mathematical Order of Operations in school?

It's not rocket science: Parenthesis, multiplication and division, addition and subtraction.

(There's more, of course, but the equation contains no fractions. Besides, the above OoO is probably confusing enough to a huge gaggle of the public as it is. No sense mucking things up any further than need be.)

*sigh*

Look: I realize everyone has their bents and likes and proclivities just as well as they have things they'd rather steer clear of. But (at least to me) if you attended school the OoO was one of the simplest, most basic concepts taught in mathematics. 

I remember Mr. Harland's response in math class every time it was brought up: 

"Mr. Harland? That's one confusing problem ... "

"No, it isn't. Just follow the Order of Operations and each and every one of you will come up with the correct answer."

But I understand if you don't remember. Or if you didn't pay attention. Or if you simply didn't show up that day during the lesson.

It's just one of those flabbergasting moments for me when I see all sorts of answers to simple math problems as the above, all wrong and all of which should be correct when the OoO is plainly (and properly) employed.

Understand: I'm no math wiz. I make some of the same mistakes everyone else makes in mathematics. It's not my area of expertise and I'm not a Brainiac in that department ... far from it. In no way, shape or form am I superior to anyone reading this when it comes to the above problem ...

... unless you call the common sensical application of the OoO "superior" ...

On the flip side (and to show I'm grounded and clearly susceptible to those "Duh" life moments), to the point of relative recency, I didn't know the proper use of a bathroom exhaust fan.

So, there's that ... 

.......... Ruprecht ( STOP )

P.S. Even if you don't know or don't remember the Order of Operations, using the formula everyone reading this should come up with the correct answer to the equation ... which is "35" ...

The Years Of Living Dangerously

Today's Throwback Thursday post is about life and death and common sense ... or lack thereof.

Somehow, I survived my childhood

  Please enjoy ...

.......... Ruprecht ( will STOP living dangerously when he dies )

 

Makes Sense To Me

My buddy Clark Brooks posted this over the weekend*:

*sigh*

It boggles the mind there are those out there who would complain about such a thing.

It's a free meal. 

It's not something where a provider asked your opinion about what kind of meal you'd like. It's not a situation where the offerer went out of their way to ask about any dietary restrictions you might have. Or whether there's an option of a fruit substitution instead of fries. Or any other iteration.

It's simply a free meal, people. Nothing more. 

You have the option to partake of it or not. After all, it's free. Meaning it's free for you to indulge in it just as well as it's free for you to kindly refuse, thank you very much. 

That's it. Period. 

Whether it's upscale, finger sandwiches, chicken livers, tofu peanut butter and jelly on crackers, the bestower is offering it to you gratis. The proper thing to do is return a simple "thank you" for the gesture.

Of course if you want to be an ass, you can complain about the type of meal provided. But it's more appropriate to keep your piehole shut and accept what's offered graciously.

Understand, this isn't a case of political correctness. That's an entirely different animal. It's about common sense, social graces and appreciation. Two things a surprising (or not) number of folks are clueless on how to exhibit during the course of an otherwise average day. 

So why am I commenting on this and making a thing of it?

Well, whether or not it makes sense, I thought about Clark's post and rant above while watching CBS Sunday Morning this morning, specifically when the below video came on. Watching it, it came to mind the contrast of those who would choose to demean a free meal and this boy's actions made me think a goodly number of people could learn from the kid.

Yeah, I know: I may not be talking apples to apples here. And some of you might scratch your head and think I'm off the rails.

But it makes perfect sense to me.

<
View More: The Spark News|U.S. News|Live News|More News Videos

.......... Ruprecht ( STOP )
*Clark's full and unaltered post may be seen on his FB page. I gratuitously altered it to make my point.
 

It Sounds As If ...

Yes ... as a matter of fact there will be more images in this post
which will probably piss someone off ...

"Chivalry seems to be making the rounds, with men explaining that women like old-fashioned men who treat women like 'the weaker sex.'"

What?

Really?

Hokay ... I want to know something:

Who are these men? Where do they come from? Are they found in the states? Or from somewhere else? On television? Fiction novels? Where? Where are they? Because I haven't ever heard of one single man - be it a friend, acquaintance or someone on the local six o'clock news - who would take the time to explain chivalry let alone in a manner which condescends to women being treated as the weaker sex.

Right off the bat, this is why I called bullshit on many of the aspects of this article: 8 Acts of Politeness That are Better than Chivalry. A better title to the piece (which advocates a whole lot of ordinary good judgment for those who don't necessarily practice it) might be "A Few Acts Of Common Sense For The Clueless."

But the "chivalry" noted in the title of the article? It's pointless. I'll even go further in stating the author ("petticoat despot") didn't know what chivalry meant when she originally wrote what she wrote.

Without looking like a complete and total condescending asshat (and to some it won't make a whit of difference, I will probably come across as that very thing) let's take a gander at a few meanings of the word "chivalry" for shits and giggles. A couple authoritative definitions might shed a little light on the subject.
 
The World English Dictionary, items 1 and 2, states chivalry is: 

• the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, especially courage, honor, justice and a readiness to help the weak 
• courteous behavior, especially towards women

Notice neither definition denotes "weak women" nor do they imply women are the weaker sex. (Note: If courteous behavior is a crime? Then throw me in jail because I'm guilty. And if courteous behavior, especially toward women, is the same? Guilty again. Go ahead and double my incarceration.)

Here are a few more. Per Dictionary.com chivalry is:

• the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor and dexterity in arms
• the rules and customs of medieval knighthood
• gallant warriors or gentlemen

Again, nothing about a weaker sex.

In the author's statement highlighted at the very top of this post, there's that "glaring" implication about "the weaker sex." Yeah, glaring to the "nth" degree. 

So I ask: Who is making this a gender thing?

The author. And no one else.

When I am out in public, do I hold doors open / offer my seat / etc. to women? Damned straight I do. Just the same as I do for men, children, the elderly, ad nauseum. Why? Out of simple, pure politeness and common decency ... and especially so when there appears to be a need. Not because I'm trying to prove a point, not because I'm trying to throw implication around for my own benefit, not to stick it to feminists. And do I do those things with chivalrous intent? At times, damned straight I do ... but without giving anyone a lecture on what chivalry is and without outward ulterior motive. Again, I do it out of generosity, when there is need and because I'm a nice guy. To do so in any other manner would be disingenuous or underhanded.


The author said it perfectly: 

"You never know the circumstances of the people around you. You imagine them. Your imagination will probably be wrong a lot."  

Correct. But where the author fails to catch a clue is that that very thing works both ways - she indicates men have an ulterior motive in appearing chivalrous. One more time:

"Your imagination will probably be wrong a lot."

Bingo. It's the assumption there is something more than simple politeness at work.

So riddle me this: How is it the author can get away with foisting assumption on a given situation if no one else is allowed to do so? The author simply doesn't get it. It's a clear case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing.
 
Regardless of the author's cluelessness on this point, there are excellent points in the the article as reflected by some of the piece's commenters:

"All of these tips sum up to one overall tip: be sympathetic towards the people around you and act accordingly."

"Gotta admit I like some things that are considered "chivalrous" but really boil down to just considerate, good manners."

It sounds as if the only person having a problem with chivalry is the author ... who's making something of nothing. 

.......... Ruprecht ( STOP putting words in people's mouths )

Pick A Winner

Autumn. It's been with us a few weeks now.

The changing of the seasons. The demarcation of summer into fall. When the leaves begin turning colorful hues. When the arrival of the evening comes noticeably earlier. When temperatures start dipping and we begin to feel cooler breezes waft through the air.

Some call it the "autumnal equinox." Others "fall." But autumn doesn't just guide the above into our notice. It isn't merely the harbinger of end-of-year holidays and festivities.

Apparently, it also ushers in the "fall" of common sense, too ...

Over the weekend, I found myself craving Chipotle, a favorite fast food joint, one of the very few I really like. I'm a big fan of their barbacoa burrito with all the hot, spicy fixings. With an early dinner savored and completed, I started leaving the establishment only to be virtually steamrolled by a couple of incoming patrons.

Now, generally, it's a common courtesy to hold the door open for folks, whether you're coming or going. At least it is in my sphere of influence. The courtesy is extended at different times and in varying situations depending on many variables - who gets to the door first, whether folks are handicapped or disabled, older folks, kids, large parties of people, all sorts of things. But, in this particular instance, I was subject to a couple who were not open to giving any quarter to anyone nor who couldn't give a rat's ass.

I was at the door and had begun opening it to leave when up the curb they leapt, seemingly to bulldog toward the opened door. I barely had time to get out of their way as the swooshed right on through. Never did their heads lift to see who was holding the door, never did their eyes make contact with mine. As a matter of fact, the girl of the pair seemed to make a concerted effort to weave around so as not to bump into me.

They wound their way into the restaurant without a word of acknowledgment, without a nod of appreciation, without a wave, without even a muffled, under-the-breath "thank you."

And you know what? That's all right. They might have been deep in conversation right up to the point they zoomed into the place. They could have been miffed at each other for all I know, not willing to break their heated concentration between themselves. If that was the case, I could understand that.
 
But I don't believe that for a moment. They were simply rude. How do I know? Because I barked out a gruff "You're welcome!" as the door shut behind them. And I made certain they heard me. They never bothered to turn their heads.

Nothing. No turn. No wave. No tip of the head. Nothing. They were just didn't give a rat's ass.

But ... there are even ruder folks out there, folks. It so happens I was in yet another place a few days later. As I made my way through throngs of teenagers just let out from school, I managed to make my way to one of the few tables available. As the place was packed, there weren't too many spots open. The one I was fortunate enough to sit at, however, afforded me a terrific view of a woman ... flossing and picking at her teeth.

And let me tell you something: She was going to town. Those picks were working overtime on her teeth. Then she pulled out floss to clean between her teeth. And then more floss. And then more floss. She was going through it so quickly I thought I saw smoke coming from her mouth. I'm not kidding.

This little show went on for a long time. 8+ minutes to be precise.

Which leads me to ask the question: Who does this? Who is rude enough to sit in plain sight of strangers who are eating and literally pick your teeth smack dab in the middle of them all?

I was tempted to recruit a couple teenagers at a nearby table and get them to move to seats near her, put our chins in our hands and just stare at her. And then I had a better idea: How about sitting directly across from her and watch her intently? I figured if I did that she wouldn't pick at her teeth in public ever again. (Who was I fooling? Of course she would ... but it would give her second thoughts before she did so.)

But my actions would have been just as rude as her personal little dental hygiene show. It's not like me to sit idly by and letting something like that take place without capitalizing on it in some way. But I knew that would have been just as rude as her actions. Still ...
 
I mean ... it's not just me that stumbles on this stuff and these people. My buddy Clark Brooks on the other coast has run into folks whose common sense has left them as well.


So I ask: Where did common sense go? It must be gone with the summer wind?

.......... Ruprecht ( STOP )

Careful. The man below could sit at your table for no reason other than to embarrass you in public.