Bananas: Pro or Con?

I recently came across this dialogue, which I thought was hillarious...
--------------------------

Debater #1 says:
Pick a topic.

Debater #2 says:
Bananas.

Debater #1 says:
Pro or con?

Debater #2 says:
I'm pro.

Debater #1 says:
Why?

Debater #2 says:
Bananas are good things. Attractive in the kitchen and tasty with a bowl of Cheerios or ice cream. Plus, they're a versatile fruit. Portable, with a unique wrapper that you can leave on until you're ready to partake.

Debater #1 says:
But that wrapper can cause numerous accidents, not to mention disposal problems. And they're not terribly portable, considering how easily they bruise. In addition, they've got those stringy things, turn brown in a question of days, and are likely to create feelings of male sexual inadequacy.

Debater #2 says:
Stringy things are a matter of inconvenience. They don't get brown if you eat 'em. As for the inadequacy thing... ummm, speak for yourself.

Debater #1 says:
Not like you can just throw them in your knapsack. What’s the fun of a delicate fruit? Takes all the excitement out of consumption.

Debater #2 says:
I think it's really a question of how rough you expect to handle your banana. Generally, I find that I can haul them around just about anywhere with little trouble or negative side effect. Besides, the dangers of banana peels are grossly exaggerated, unless you're smoking them or something. They're just not that slippery. And remember, with no bananas there would be no banana pudding... no banana splits... no happy monkeys... These are all wonderful things, which should definitely be borne in mind.

Debater #1 says:
Banana pudding is highly overrated.

Debater #2 says:
You've obviously never had my grandmother's banana pudding.

Debater #1 says:
And really, the best part of a banana split isn't the banana. That’s what you add so you can pretend it's healthy.

Debater #2 says:
I'd concede that the banana is not the crowning glory of the banana split, but neither would the delicacy be the same without it. So, in summation, I am a huge banana fan, and I fully support their further propagation and consumption.

Debater #1 says:
Highly overrated fruit. Should definitely be approached with caution.

Debater #2 says:
I must also add that scientists are figuring out how to genetically engineer bananas to contain vaccines that can be distributed to kids in poor nations. If you're anti-banana, you're in favor of poor kids getting malaria.

Debater #1 says:
Well in that case I’ll have to concede. I do recall hearing something to that effect. You win.

Debater #2 says:
HOORAY FOR BANANAS! If any fruit has to make me doubt my sexual adequacy, I'm glad it's you, banana!
----------------------------

So the question for you, gentle reader, is where you fall in this crucial debate. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Credit Where Credit's Due

Last Wednesday I woke up with the second-worst headache of my entire life. It was excruciating, and I had to take a sick day. Tiger, being the incomparable girlfriend that she is, used her lunch break to come and baby me. She made sure that I had a good meal, industrial-strength headache medicine, and plenty of sympathy. It was really wonderful.

To top that off, on Thursday she drove me to Union Station so I could catch my plane to the airport. We got to spend about an hour together, having lunch and chatting, before I had to jump on the train that would take me up to BWI for my flight down to Alabama. It absolutely made my day to get to spend that time with her, knowing that it'd be about a week before we were in each others' company again.

So that's my post for the day. Tiger rocks, and I can't wait to see her again later this week.

Okay, I'll Play

So this is my map for where I've been in the United States. I've only got a dozen or so more states to visit, most of which I could hit with a hard day's worth of driving in New England. I've also spend a little time in Canada, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic. But that's it for my travels - they're limited to North America. I hope that at some point in the (not-too-distant) future I'll be able to visit Europe and South America. Africa, Asia, Australia, and Antarctica will all have to wait.

Congressional Absurdity

I'm pretty certain that I would find plenty on which I'd disagree with Representative John Dingell (D-Mich.), but he recently read the following poem to the entire House of Representatives on the occasion of their passing - by a vote of 401-22 - a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for those who celebrate Christmas." It's nice to see that someone in Congress has managed to maintain both a sense of reality and a sense of humor about the ridiculous "war on Christmas" thing.

"'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
No bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

"Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
And nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.

"Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

"We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
Hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

"This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
When this is the season to unite us with joy.

"At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

"'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
A Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly... 'happy holidays.'

"Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas!"

Storytellers

There is little I love more in this world than listening to good storytelling. I remember when I was just a little, little boy listening to Grandmom (my father’s mother) weaving stories about my cousins and I getting into some scrap of trouble, and how her dog, Shiner, would come to our rescue. I remember Pa (my mother’s father) sitting me on his lap and reading/telling me Uncle Remus’ stories about Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and Brer Bear, drawn from the folk tales that slaves use to tell on the plantations. I remember hearing in my elementary school, storytellers from the East Tennessee mountain tradition, spinning yarns with the twang of fiddles and dulcimers hanging in their voices. I loved it all, and each of these influences still surface in my own efforts at storytelling today.

One storytelling influence, however, stands out above the rest. When I was growing up, Saturday nights always meant my family listening to Garrison Keillor’s A Prairie Home Companion. Keillor is one of the great storytellers the world has ever known. Every week on his radio show, he takes 15-20 minutes to talk about events in his (fictional) hometown of Lake Woebegone, Minnesota. His stories are populated by Norwegian bachelor farmers, Lutherans, and other good-hearted, stolid Midwestern types – after all, in Lake Woebegone “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above-average.” Keillor’s stories are mellow and subtle in their humor, and they are full of warmth and feeling. I could sit for hours, listening to Garrison talk, and many of his monologues stick in my mind long, long after they spilled out of the radio.

A couple of years ago, I discovered that A Prairie Home Companion has on its website an archived collection of old shows, which stretches back to 1996. There is a segment-by-segment breakdown of each show, including “The News From Lake Woebegone,” which is where the magic happens. By following a link, you can listen to them on your RealPlayer. For anyone who has the time and patience to listen to them, I encourage you to check out the stories linked to below:

A great monologue, including the story of a family portrait taken in Garrison’s youth – [http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/20020413/]

The achingly-beautiful tale of Prohibition-era parents who had to give up their daughter for adoption, and how the father later tried to seek her out - [http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/20020302/]

How Lake Woebegone got that year’s Christmas tree, which was grown by a WWII veteran – [http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/19971213/]

Ummm... Maybe.

Character Analysis of: DAVE

You are a conformist who likes to do the 'right thing'. Sudden change in your day-to-day environment unsettles you, leading to insecurity if protracted. Likely to see complex issues as black or white rather than shades of grey. [I definitely do like to do the "right thing." I just tend to have some unusual ideas about what it means to do the right thing. My initial reaction to the last sentence was to disagree. But the more I think about it, I do tend to resolve my ideas about issues into black and white - they may start out as "grey," and I may have my own way of thinking about them, but they do usually get sorted out.]

You like to surprise people especially when they start to think that they understand you. You possess a good sense of humour, delighting most in witty jokes or stories which have a 'slice-oflife' flavour to them. This trait may be an asset to you in dealing with problems or pressure. It gives you the ability to see the 'other' side of something seemingly serious. [This is definitely right on target. I love to catch people off-guard and I love to tell stories. My sense of humor is tremendously useful in keeping things in perspective. And I also like to think that I do a pretty good job of seeing multiple perspectives, even if I'm not necessarily persuaded to change my own mind.]

If some people can be described as 'very materialistic' then you represent the ultimate opposite. No amount of wealth or rich possessions could tempt you away from your desire to live as you wish. For you, happiness is built on spiritual foundations; some people with this trait may occasionally be a bit naive. [Absolutely.]

Others find you non-hostile and easy to approach. This is due mainly to the image you project of being receptive to others. This does not mean that you suffer fools or enemies gladly - merely that you give them a chance. Those who willingly wish ill against you, or mistake your receptive manner as weakness, are soon stunned by your rebuke when you find out about them. [This is definitely what I'd like to believe about myself... but I don't know if it's always true in practice. Depending on when someone sees me, they may not think I'm that easy to approach. The rest of it? Right on. So don't piss me off. ;-)]

Much of what we become is formed in the early years of our life by our parents and family. When you were young your mother was always there for you: very loving, generous, and warm. She put her family first, before all else, and you respect her greatly. Surprisingly, this has not been a major factor in shaping your character and the person you are today. Other major factors in your childhood or adult life have been more influential on you! [This sounds about right. For all of my jokes about Mama Roland, she is a wonderful, amazingly caring person and I respect her immensely for that. But I agree with the report that her influence on my own development has been limited.]

You do/did not know your father deeply, but perceive him as an uncomplicated person. He was (or still is?) a lovable, jolly dad. He was normally there when you needed him most. This has had some affect in the past on forming your character. Parental traits, affecting how you like to deal with life, come from your father (a little) but more from other factors. [Hmmm... It's true that I don't feel like I know my dad deeply, but I do think of him as somewhat complicated. He's definitely lovable, but "jolly" isn't a word that I'd use to describe him. He can be kind of gruff and distant. My sisters tell me that they see some of his personality in my own, although I don't know that I see the same thing. Still, their perspective is probably superior to my own in that regard. The biggest thing that I've inherited from my dad is his fierce sense of loyalty. One of my friends in college once said I was "more loyal than any dog" (not particularly a compliment in that context, either), and that's something that I come by honestly.]

Your picture indicates that your mother and father were very close to each other. [For the most part, I think this is accurate.]

You can be very introspective, often thinking deeply about life and it's purpose. Your picture indicates you possess a major capacity for reflecting on a variety of subjects especially on philosophical or possibly emotional issues. You posses a strong belief in at least one specific discipline: religion, sexual equality, science, animal rights, politics etc. [I dunno. Has anyone ever known me to be introspective or reflective on philosophical, religious, scientific, political, or egalitarian ideas?]

Although you have suggested in your picture that you are someonethat prefers a stable affectionate relationship rather than a mad sensational fling, it may not be entirely true. Your libido appears to be repressed - this may be due to immaturity: are you fairly young? If not then what your picture depicts is true and you will always need understanding, closeness, and warmth in your shared experiences with a partner. [I think this is true, although there have been occasional "mad sensational flings" here and there.]

You do not appear to be ambitious but you're able to work hard to maintain a balanced life-style. However, you have a tendency to avoid confrontation too quickly when faced with obstacles in your way. [I kind of disagree here. I am definitely ambitious, but I don't desire acheivement for acheivement's sake. I would like to maintain a balanced lifestyle, but I'm also willing to sacrifice an awful lot in pursuit of my goals. I avoid confrontation more frequently than some of my readers will realize, but I'm absolutely willing to stand my ground when I feel like it's useful or necessary.]

Summary of other traits and personal tastes:
-----------------------------------------------
Decision making: Plays safe - avoids taking chances. [In some senses, maybe. But I also roll the dice a good bit.]
Day-dreams most of : Travel or escapism. [Yeah.]
Worst Nightmares of: Guilt, being hunted/chased, being watched. [I don't know. I don't remember many nightmares.]
General Outlook: Balanced - between pessimism & optimism. [My closest friends frequently refer to me as "the eternal optimist," although I also have a strong practical side as well.]

Why My Job Is Important

Stories like these make me ache. And they're all-too-common. Cities decide that they'd like a better (wealthier) class of people than the older, poorer, or darker-skinned folks that currently occupy some of their neighborhoods, so the cities take by force homes that weren't for sale, caring not at all what happens to the displaced residents as long as they're not delaying construction on the new development. We've failed as a country if we can allow situations like the one described below.


War hero who battled Nazis fights for his home
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
By JEFFREY PAGE BERGEN RECORD

You have to admire people like Johnnie Stevens, a man who decided he would not back down when the government came calling to say it wanted - coveted is more like it - his house in Carteret.

Why should he give the old place up? He has lived in Carteret for the last 50 years, has been in his home for the last 12. This guy is no Johnnie-come-lately to Carteret. Nor is he a grumpy old misanthrope telling Carteret to go to hell. In fact, in a way he is Carteret. He's well-liked around town. He has been a football coach, and the borough even named a day care center in his honor.

So why should this old sick war hero be forced out of his home in order to allow the borough to take possession and then deed the property to a developer who will turn around and build luxury condos and shops? They call it redevelopment. You would not be over-dramatizing it if you just cut to the chase and called it a travesty.

Stevens is 85. During World War II, he won three Purple Hearts and two Bronze Stars for his exploits as a member of the 761st Tank Battalion, the renowned all-black unit that stormed across Europe after D-Day under George Patton. He was there when the 761st liberated some of the death camps. After the war Stevens made a life for himself in Carteret. He drove buses.
Now he is sick, diagnosed with lung cancer and living with an oxygen tank. His doctors give him two more years, tops. His wife is 80. She has cancer, too.

The Stevenses are some of the people being hassled by local governments everywhere that want to seize their homes and turn them over to builders who will jazz up the neighborhood with some apartments there, some fancy shops here, and high sale prices all over. This is the kind of seizure no one thought possible. Sure, the government always had the right of eminent domain. It could take a property for use by the public. For example, your home could be taken, leveled, and the property used to build, say, a new library or a new ambulance building. But lose your place so some rich people with no place to go can have a place to live in your town? Who thought that could happen?