Why Listen to Heidi Klum?

by Margaret Curtis, PhD

Stalking around the display of her wares on TV, supermodel Heidi Klum offers parents the nursery of HER dreams. She names her designs “Trulyscrumptious,” which sounds like an eclaire or Napoleon pastry, and advertises their availability at BabiesRUS. Why not call this exercise in arrogance by its true name—“Trulyobnoxious,” created for RidiculousRUS?

What babies need designer trappings in the room where they sleep, drool, and begin to aim for light sockets with tiny fingers? And stalking down a runway, as Heidi's gait demonstrates on camera, accomplishes no movements appropriate to Dad, Mom, or Kiddie in the ideal nursery. Mom and Dad come best equipped for this task—and grandparents, with mementos.

The tiny doll which Grandma made for Mom belongs on a high dresser. Dad’s and Mom’s recorded lullabies can out-perform Heidi any day or thundering night. The resident of that nursery heard her parents’ voices long before s/he kicked or screamed. Hearing them while parents confabulate together in another room reassures that child of their constant presence and protection.

What they need to protect that child from first of all is merciless commercialism. Swath that child in keepsakes—a favorite comforter, embroidered with images of family pets, or a cross-stitch masterpiece donated by Aunt Hilda, or Uncle Edward’s old army blanket. If that child is lucky, s/he will never forget these members of a particular and very specific human family.

What that child does not need—EVER—is the assumption from Day One that no fate better than becoming a smarmy stalking supermodel awaits in the future. Heidi’s dreams belong in Heidi’s closet. Let her bring them out to impress somebody else--not a child who dreams of Mommy and Daddy tiptoeing in barefoot to check if that child is covered, and kissing that sweet brow Good Night.  

The Debate of the Century: Public Speaking 101

By Margaret Curtis, PhD

One after another, commentators on the Debate of the Century—so far—remark that Obama kept his eyes down during his first confrontation on a stage with Mitt Romney. They can call this behavior anything they like, but it reeks of failing Speech 101. No successful undergraduate leaves that class with an A for refusing to make eye-contact.

Anybody who watches the crime shows on TV also knows what this behavior means: During interrogations of suspects, police cajole, yell, or whisper: “LOOK AT ME!”

Animal psychologists can also tell any interested parties: An aggressor conveys his/her intentions by glaring straight at his enemy. Stare back if you’re ready for a fight!

Of course, if you don’t want a fight, don’t return that stare—even to a cat or dog, who’s never taken Speech 101—because, the minute you do, they’re likely to charge right at you.

In this context, the audience always loses interest when a speaker fails the eye-contact test. Quite rightly, they expect a speaker to engage them—an eye for an eye is the absolute rule.

That look by a speaker says as much as all his words, memorized or spontaneous. It says: I am ready to meet you—come hell or high water—at the deli, the mall, or the boxing ring. You choose.

A President of the United States who cannot look his competition in the eye tells all observers that he will not meet Congress, the Senate, or World Leaders—good or evil—for eye combat either. He may be off his game. He may forget his game. But, sure as day follows night, if he cannot stand straight and lift his eyes, he is not game for the biggest fight of his life.

He may look down out of fear, which an opponent smells faster than sweat. He may avoid confrontation, but, if that desire rules, what is he doing on stage? Why race around the country, assuring voters he’s the man for the job? THIS JOB—the Presidency of the US—comes with numerous debts. Not a single US check or bond can compensate voters for backing a loser. 

Sexiest Smile in the West: Nominations Closed

By Margaret Curtis, PhD

As Patrick Jane, Simon Baker smiles at police, millionaires and psychos. He should. With Peter O’Toole’s magnificent mane, Baker appears to wear a crown of red gold. With Michael Caine’s sense of noblesse oblige, as well as his talent for roguery in roles like The Man Who Would Be King, Baker triumphs as The Man Who Can Read the Lizard Mind.

Jane reads motives, buried under surfaces carpeted with hyper-color—like Jane’s hair, his associates’ flame red veils and smoldering black helmets. Watching Baker’s popular series The Mentalist allows viewers to dive into a painting, created by pixels. If reality were this color intensive, who would leave it to luxuriate in fantasies?

Jane’s character smiles because he supposedly knows more about us than we do. Don’t we wish that he confided his resolutions to all our issues, outside the television screen? As he rolls and dances through the series’ plots, he advises criminals and co-workers alike on not dying from self-pity and not smugging their way to the top. No psychic he, more like hyper-psychologist.

He hears what we don’t say—a very old formula for TV success. He says what we don’t admit—that we, too, would roll and dance through our lives, if we felt as comfortable as he does consorting with lizards. The lizards among us do not intimidate him, for all the world’s lizards reveal to him their desire to become more than boots, belts, and boutique jackets.

Simon Baker deserves kudos for bringing off this role. He could have settled for smiling like Charlie Harper, who’s always got another hooker waiting in his bedroom. He could have settled for violence to settle conflicts with the rich and opportunistic. Instead, his character applies critical thinking to undress the lawless who—without his skills--drive the unthinking nuts.  

The Insanity Test: Does US Education Pass?

by Margaret Curtis, PhD

Why does insanity in higher education shock anybody? The James Holmes story offers a single case, but the Fiscal Times piles on the evidence with “10 Public Colleges with Insanely Luxurious Dorms.”

These schools include University of Michigan-North Quadrangle Residential and Academic Complex, Georgia State University-University Commons, University of Cincinnati-Campus Recreation Center Housing, and seven more demonstrations of a national obsession with extravagant wealth.   

Amenities at Penn State University's Eastview Terrace complex include the following:

“This complex offers upperclassmen fully furnished single rooms with private bathrooms. Rooms are wired for TV cable, with dozens of popular channels and Internet access; there are also refrigerators and microwaves. All of the buildings have mail pickup and delivery."

Where are the editorials complaining that the public cannot afford such lavish accommodations for students taking their lessons at the public trough? This article mentions students jumping and down with glee, but what about parents jumping up and down with exasperation?

Is a college education supposed to place the student in an expensive hotel? Is s/he blessed automatically with TV channels, upon registration? What does any of this costly apparatus have to do with learning subjects requiring long hours NOT watching TV, but studying in a library or working in a laboratory?

As the US continues to fight its way out of recession, such lavish expenditures should grate on the nation’s conscience. They should not appear as bragging. They should not be attracting students or parents who complain about the staggering costs of higher education.

As for mail pickup and delivery, running back and forth to a mail-room hurts no one. In fact, it provides a promising preventive against obesity. Sitting or lying on a couch watching TV accomplishes the opposite. Overall, conditioning students to believe they should be treated like monarchs wherever they go gives the lie to democracy.

How can students appreciate the real amenities of life if they never experience the drudgery of earning and paying for them? Where do American students rank in math and reading skills among their international competition? What is more insane here—unaffordable luxuries or complaints about problems with economical solutions?   

                                                                             * * * * *                                                                    
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2012/08/28/10-Public-Colleges-With-the-Most-Luxurious-Dorms.aspx#cJGQjFbUKFYPLqfj.99 

The UK Does Romeo and Juliet AGAIN!

by Margaret Curtis, PhD

The latest version of Shakespeare’s famous tragedy shows remarkable innovations. As the UK Telegraph reports on October 1, 2012:

Jeremy Forrest 'still desperate to be near schoolgirl lover'

“Jeremy Forrest, the maths teacher who eloped to France with a 15-year old pupil decided not [to] fight extradition to the UK to enable him to remain “near to the one he loves”, it emerged yesterday.”

The most startling addition here to the famous plot makes Romeo a teacher—and a “maths teacher,” no less. Readers may well wonder how this “teacher” could ignore numerical limitations on eloping, as well as supporting his romantic partner in a foreign country.

Nevertheless, The Telegraph assures readers that the two planned to stay in France until Megan Stammers passed the age limit next year—and her hubbie-to-be found work at a cash-paying bar.

Other than French and British police, only one monkey wrench appeared in that version of their Dream Plan: Jeremy already possesses one wife. What did he plan to do with two? Wouldn’t a real “maths teacher” have wrestled with that equation?

Imagine the limitations of the Bard’s imagination—even he never dreamed of making Romeo a married man! The age differential between the two lovers now demonstrates that romantic passion subjects thirty-somethings to foolishness, too.

What a promising dramatic adaptation! Gendarmes rush down the street to catch a married man accused of kidnapping a girl enrolled at his school. Then, the girl appears on screen, decked in a Hollywood hairdo, blowing kisses to her fans.

The last scene, so far, reveals that same young girl dressed all in black, boarding a jet to haul her back to the UK, where the drama began. Meanwhile, her wannabe lover forfeits his chance to learn French like a national so he can be only a prison away from his lover.

What Hollywood will do with this adaptation remains to be seen, but these two goofballs give them a heck of a start. The kicker in this spoof on romantic drama proves to be the girl’s passport, which came from Jeremy’s wife, so says The Telegraph now.

If this play were Dallas or Law and Order, the next segment would occur in a court room, where Jeremy’s wife would have the last word. At any rate, that segment would give her the appearance she deserves, and offer her a chance to reclaim, if not use, her passport.

           * * * * *

Soap opera fans can consult the full Telegraph version of Shakespeare's tragedy on this website: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9577647/Jeremy-Forrest-still-desperate-to-be-near-schoolgirl-lover.html>.

“Are you in?”—How to Write Gibberish

By Margaret Curtis, PhD

Commercial and political writers now perform the latest version of “The Cool Jerk” by asking that question: “Are you in?” According to that paragon of wisdom Wikipedia, "Cool Jerk" “is a popular song written by Donald Storball and originally performed by The Capitols. Released in 1966, it reached No. 2 on the American R&B chart and No. 7 on the pop chart.” An entertaining song, now available on numerous websites, it continues to hypnotize dancers on YouTube. It repeats the three-word title as often as possible so you won’t forget it. In politics, we call these lyrics “Talking Points.”

In English, however, we call this habit “gibberish.” First, this question conveys no meaning. This lack derives from an incomplete prepositional phrase, leaving the listener dangling, to supply his own object for the preposition “in.” This omission betrays similarity to another bit of gibberish in the expression “She was there for me.” In this case, too, the audience receives no clue what “there” means.

This kind of diction relies on a game of pretend: IF you are a pal of the speaker, of course, you are supposed to be “in the know,” too, when translating gibberish to English. You are also supposed to guess correctly what on earth that character is talking about, because he really couldn’t tell you, could he? Shhhh! With such words we enter the world of code-speak. In fact, gibberish, otherwise known as “slang,” depends completely on secrecy for correct translation. Either you are in the “In Crowd,” or you don’t understand a word of its meaning. In this case, the meaning declares an assault on the English language.

As a preposition, “in” implies “inside,” as opposed to “outside.” The geography of these locations needs to be specified, or even a map won’t get you to your destination. “In” does not serve the same purpose as that other preposition “into.” In other words, you are “in the dark” when you are “inside” a closed location, but you still have a chance to see the light when you are on your way “into” that same location. A door may get you there, IF one comes with the property. A vote or purchase price may also do the trick IF you qualify, either by possessing or not possessing money.

Obviously, now that we have pursued “in” this far, we must recognize that “in” implies “out,” as well. Thus we arrive at the latest gibberish related to the old gibberish explicated above. Here, Wikipedia again does its best to keep up with non-English speakers. It provides two terms carrying “in” and “out” to the geopolitical realm:

“An enclave is a territory entirely surrounded by another territory.

An exclave, on the other hand, is a territory legally or politically attached to another territory with which it is not physically contiguous.”

Just substitute “in” for “en” and “out” for “ex,” and you 

get the idea. If you belong to an “enclave,” you are 

“surrounded.” If you belong to an “exclave,” you get to 

be in “ex-ile” from your home base. 

Just how weird can English get? That capacity depends 

on how familiar you are with Westerns, maybe. IF you 

are an “in-law,” you are already in trouble. If you are an 

“outlaw,” you know what trouble means. It means an 

election is underway, and somebody’s always trying to 

sell you something.

Pardon me now. I must take a break. I will go “out” for a while. Then, I will come “into” this blog again, after my head clears of gibberish. Dancing to “The Cool Jerk” supplies good exercise for the First Presidential Debate of 2012. Don’t miss it! All the mental mush accumulated during the last few years must go "out" some door or window. All of us on the “inside” must prepare to go “outside,” or vice versa. Does Google offer a map for this tango? Or is that one of those apps that leads everyone to road rage on their way “out” or “in”?   

McDonald's Is Not Our Mother

By Margaret Curtis, PhD

Scientists took too long to conclude that the hand that feeds the chick rules the hen house. Recent research which revealed that fast-food dining imprints children with corporate logos did not surprise anyone familiar with animal training. People function as animals, too, whenever food enters the picture. It always enters the picture for competitive dog handlers.

If you have ever watched a dog show closely, you have seen a handler touch his own mouth and then slip his hand quickly to his show dog. That hand most likely contained a tiny treat, now smeared with the handler’s saliva. This movement completes the oldest trick in the book for show people. It connects the handler with the animal on the most basic biological level.

Just as a mother animal licks her pup clean, so a handler identifies his own body with the body of the creature he takes into the show ring. Together, they go—or they don’t proceed at all. This is only the first of many mind control devices to create a twosome which goes nowhere alone. To be successful in the show ring, each partner must be able to think each other’s thoughts.

Such activity only demonstrates the soundness of ancient philosophy. “A sound mind in a sound body” suggests the parallel at the root of Western thought. The wisest pediatrician known to this writer stated the concept at stake here as simply as possible when he simply said: “Everything in the human body is connected to everything else.” “Everything” includes the brain, of course.

To recognize the fundamental nature of this concept is to challenge the direction of dining practices in America for the last thirty years. Is it really a treat to take a child to a fast-food restaurant where he connects his survival with a corporation? Is it doing that child a favor to instill in him the notion that a corporation can outdo his parents in producing tasty cuisine?

Will that corporation be on hand when he awakes in the middle of the night with a fever or bellyache? Will that corporation read him a bedtime story that he has not heard before? Will that corporation do sound effects to accompany that story so the child giggles with delight? It’s past time to take our children back from invaders, who begin in the kitchen—and dining room, too.

To accomplish that task will take sacrifice and hard work. Forget the stories about invaders from Outer Space. Forget arguments over which diet excels over all the others. Let that kid know that Mom and Dad can cook—and that child can cook, too! S/he need not be dependent on any invader of domestic life to supply the food that tastes like nothing else on earth—home cooking.

                                                                      * * * * *

For the latest research, please see "’I'm Lovin' It’: Fast-Food Logos 'Imprinted' in Children's Brains, Study Says” in Medical Daily:
<http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/12318/20120925/fast-food-logos-imprinted-childrens-brains.htm#l6Ae39k9LsiGeuz3.99>.