List of Previous Titles

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Recognizing your own limitations

To be Confident


When I was a young man I was really something! I was handsome, I had a six-pack chest, and I had hair! I was popular and the girls loved me. My response to any and all challenges, when asked if I could handle it, was always “Yes, I can!”

These are just some of the things that I have worked at, in, or had experience with: I was an outside linesman for the power company. I climbed up poles in the height of hurricanes to restore power. I worked in every department of hotels; drove a taxi; was a calypso singer; played in a steel band; I have flown a glider; worked as a motor mechanic; hosted my own radio show; have been a news presenter for television; produced and directed my own video show for television; sold life insurance and investments; sold real estate; wrote newspaper columns; was a consultant to the police; qualified as an accountant; managed reinsurance companies. And I write blogs. I was even a tea lady and chambermaid when our hotel was on strike.

I was so-o-o good! But then came the passage of time and tide. I got fat and lazy. I said to all the young people, you’all go ahead and change the world. I’m comfortable right here.

Then, came a complete change of pace. Now, I as a man with a beard am a promoter of women’s cosmetics, and it’s working. I can now add another description to the above list. A friend introduced me to Toastmasters International. The club meets twice monthly in a social setting and works on honing their skills as public speakers. It’s fun!

Social and fun are two words that go well with me. The public speaking training thing I’ve been doing ever since I met Dale Carnegie about what seems like a 100 years ago, so I didn’t need any of that. Or, so I thought.

The time came for me to deliver my ice-breaker speech, and I found myself all over the place. Words wouldn’t come out in the sequence in which I wanted, or unwanted words jumped out into the room. I felt I was a real mess. Where was the erudite at-ease presenter of yesterday?

Something had changed when I wasn’t looking. I was out of practise for one thing. The other thing that is more deadly is that the years have gone by and they have taken their toll. I push back as hard as I can, and in reality I don’t feel every one of my seventy years. You can always know when a person is seventy. That is because we’ll tell you. That’s how you’ll know. We’re always saying “I’m seventy, you know!” We’re so amazed, we have to share with you.

Although there is the very distinct possibility that I will live to celebrate my one- hundredth birthday, there are some irrefutable facts to consider. The eyesight isn’t as good. It’s not too bad, but time is making changes. The quality of my hearing is probably diminishing a bit, helped no doubt by the effects of the mascletas in Valencia. The memory is definitely the worst case. It’s very good, but it’s short

I therefore have some limitations these days where none existed in my earlier years. I can no longer act the role of the smooth talking, overly confident master of ceremonies who hosted New Year celebrations. I need a script, and I need to follow it. If I am going to ad-lib, then I’d better rehearse my ad-lib comments. I have to rehearse and rehearse before getting up to speak. Period!

I know I have to do these things, and if I wanted confirmation my evaluator at my last speech gave it to me when she said that she was impressed by how I had pulled together my presentation. She commented that my choice of words were correct and carefully chosen. I chalked up one “ah” instead of my usual eight or more.

I have had an epiphany. I have come to know who I am and what some of my limitations are. I somehow believe that this will be an on-going experience, which is just as well as I wouldn’t want to come face to face with them all at once.

When delivering a speech, having to follow a script is not necessarily a bad thing. I am absolutely devoted to my "cousin" when he is speaking. Barack relies on tele-prompters but he makes his speeches seem so natural. He must be very careful with his every word. That is not a bad strategy because once the word is out it cannot be brought back and tucked safely away

So, with my limitations firmly in mind I plan to strut confidently into the future. My life has been really great to this point, and I have lived it as I have seen fit. There is one thought that brings a smile to my face at this time, and it is this: The best is yet to come. You ain’t seen nothing yet!

If you are a resident of Valencia, or even simply a visitor and would like to know more about Toastmasters International, please e-mail me at eugene.spain@gmail.com





Copyright (c) 2009 Eugene Carmichael

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Double Standards

Men Behaving like Men



My friend, Joanna Cruickshank, writing in her weekly column “An English Girl in Spain” for The Costa Blanca News, raised the question in a recent edition of why should there be such double standards between how men can behave and be considered perfectly normal, and how such behaviour by a woman would be looked down upon by society. It’s just not fair, she suggests. I agree with her completely, and I wondered how society can entertain such thinking in these modern times.

Firstly, let’s consider my own stance on this topic: am I one of the guilty parties who has ever practised the double standard?

The answer, if I am absolutely truthful, is yes! Now, having admitted that I feel absolutely naked. Perhaps I had better explain: I have not actually been aware of how my thought patterns have worked. It’s only because the article was suddenly in my face that I examined my feelings and have come to this admission.

The fundamental reason for the Double Standard is because of the place we hold women in our society. Every mother is a woman, and that alone places her on a pedestal, whether she wants to be there or not. Also, there are other major differences in the way that women see themselves, and especially in the way that men see women. I can only comment from a man’s point of view, and historically this is the way I see things:

I have to admit that I bought a Playboy Magazine from the very first edition, and that I have helped to make the magazine a success down through the years. I can also say the same of Penthouse Magazine. I should add that over time, in my mind, the flesh, that was is in the forefront, traded places with the articles, although I don’t expect any of the ladies to believe me. However, it’s just amazing what a person can grow weary of.

I mention this because I was thinking recently that it’s a shame that our freedoms gave vent to this type of publication. For men of my generation we grew up holding girls and women in a very high and mysterious place. Our sexual couplings always took place with the lights out and eyes firmly shut. That mindset continues in the Islamic and Arab worlds where women are required to keep covered up by at least covering her hair or covering up completely.

I think Western men definitely lost something at the same time as the Playmate of the Month showed us what she had for breakfast. We lost the exciting sense of mystique and some respect. However, throughout the period of transparency and even women’s march to obtain greater freedoms, women have not entirely lost their special place in our minds. There are some things that a woman should never do. Women should never be hooligans, or yobs. They should not be gangsters or break-in thieves, nor should they be contract killers or boxers. There is someting even uncomfortable about women in the armed forces.

Perhaps it’s a big surprise, from the standpoint of image, but women should not even smoke. Smoking does nothing to advance the social standing of a woman, in spite of the fact that many will say they are social smokers. No-one cares whether a man smokes or not. He does not have an image to uphold. At worst he is simply silly to do that to his health.

The children’s rhyme says it all. “Girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice; boys are made from salt and snails and puppy dogs tails.”

Society does practise a double standard, and by society we mean both men and women. However, is this double standard all bad, or even good? We will never have a consensus on this question as we all have our own attitudes and turf to protect, so I won’t even try to find common ground. Except to say that when we frown upon certain acts taken by women that we might accept on the part of men, we are probably doing so out of our natural respect and desire to elevate the woman. This need not be a bad thing.

Now, having said that we have to reconcile it with the modern attitude to equality. Clearly, under that doctrine a woman can do whatever she wishes, within the law, but that does not mean she will always be praised or respected. It only means that we the public will be confused.

Copyright © 2009 Eugene Carmichael

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Situation Comedies


SitComs

Recently I had an interesting conversation with a friend regarding Sitcoms, mainly of the American variety. We looked back over many favourites with pleasure and considered some of the implications behind some of them, whether those implications were real and intended or not. There are two that are top of our list that we believe have permanent social effects, and they are “All in the Family”, the family being Archie Bunker and his wife Edith. The other is “The Cosby Show”. First, “All in the Family.”

What this show did was take a redneck, bigoted, blue-collar worker and expose his manner of thinking into the public domain. The show ran from 1971 through to 1979. Carroll O’Connor played the role of Archie, which was a very brave thing for him to do, because it branded him in the mind of the viewing public as a bigot. In reality he was not, and went out of his way in his own time to prove it. I think that it must have been in the mind of the producers to make a social statement with this show, one that was both subtle as well as bold.

Most people did not realise what was happening at the time, but the writing was so well done and the set-up of the scenes so crafty that the end result was that for people who thought like Archie Bunker, they saw their own thoughts on screen and the reaction was laughter. They were not respected but thought of as being silly. Michael, Archie’s son- in-law provided the counterfoil to Archie’s nonsensical opinions, and gradually the bigots of America got an education while not even realising it.

To add to the mix the show would insert a black character, a young man with whom Archie carried on a perfectly pleasant and natural relationship. Although his dialog placed the lad in a position whereby Archie got to offer advice, he nonetheless was able to associate with the lad in a comfortable manner.

I have personally known such men as Archie, one of whom said to me that he was pleased that “the boy, Kofi Annon had become United Nations Secretary General.” I met that statement with my mouth wide open and no sound came out.

This is a show that is still in syndication, and it is still working its magic. It is making the bigots laugh at themselves, and I credit this show for largely making it possible for the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States of America by softening up otherwise hardcore and rabid opinions by a lot of very stupid people, who also vote.

Secondly, working right along with “All in the Family” was “The Cosby Show” featuring Bill Cosby. This show ran from 1984 until 1992, and showed a black American family living its life on a daily basis, and how funny their life could be, as well as being exactly like any white American family. They were not a family with children who were gangsters or drug dealers, and in reality the great majority of black families are more like the Cosbys´. This was an important window into the lives of black Americans for white America. There was no limit to the amount of material that looked into how white America lived, but this show, following up on “All in the family” was part of the awakening and growing of America.



“Seinfeld”, on the other hand was a show about nothing at all. At least that was what its creator said, but the truth was that it was a show about everything and it had no social message whatsoever. It was just plain funny and brilliant and everybody loved it. The more risqué topics were the funniest and got talked about the next day at the office. The curious thing about “Seinfeld is that it was all about three characters, Seinfeld, Elaine, and George. The fourth regular character, Kramer, who really had no substantive role was the funniest of all because of his nervous on-screen persona. He never actually did anything.

The most challenging show of all was “Fraiser”, a highbrow comedy that ended up appealing to the very rich upper class and the general public as well. This must have been one amazing challenge to make a success. The show always ran along two levels: the level that Frasier and his brother, Niles, together with Daphne, the English caregiver to the father figure, Martin maintained, which was upper class; and that of all the other characters who were understood by the public at large.

This required some very careful and crafty writing and interpretation over the period 1993 to 2004. The fact is that the comedy from this show was some of the best and unflawed. We watched in delighted fascination without ever realising what was happening. It’s only now that I am taking the time to think about it and through my discussions with my friend that I realise what a masterpiece that was.

There were so many other really great sitcoms over the years, starting in my memory with “I love Lucy” and “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”. There was “Cheers”, “The Simpsons” and “Friends”, (a show that I was never able to come to love, but the entire world around me did) that all provided a wonderful soundtrack to our lives. I wish I could comment on all of them, but suffice it to say that life would not be life without the ability to laugh.

As Bill Cosby once said, sitcoms are just life things that we forgot to laugh about the first time they happened.

Copyright © 2009 Eugene Carmichael

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Colonies


Colonies -Other People's Countries


Once Upon a Time the countries of Europe thought it a good idea to grab great chunks of land to add to their own, and they did this by going forth as Explorers and Adventurers to invade other people’s lands, where they killed as many natives as was necessary and dominated the rest until they could say they had added another Colony. This they did with pride and joy as these activities were considered to be honourable and just.

Largely speaking they were all engaged in such exploits. Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the Scandinavian Countries all did their share of raping and pillaging. Some even attacked other European countries. One of the most successful was Britain. It achieved so much, especially for such a small island, that at one time they proudly declared that the sun never sets on The British Empire. In a moment of supreme grandeur they added the word Great to their name, thereby being known as Great Britain.

There was one thing in particular about all this: it was wrong!

How was it ever thought morally justified that to invade someone else’s country and kill the natives and rape the women, and the country of its resources was the right thing to do? It never was right, of course, but a country’s might made it right. Unless yours was a country that came under attack and you were able to successfully ward off the attackers, then you became a spoil of war, and fair was fair.

The manner in which people behaved in those days was utterly reprehensible. The thing that has prompted me to think of this subject is what we call terrorism in today’s world. I shall treat that topic more fully in a future article. For now, I think back on the dark days of the occupation by European countries throughout the world in other people’s homes. The foreign country always fell back on their belief that they were civilising the natives, whether they wanted it or not. But then, one day, a very soft spoken diminutive man said to the occupying force in his country that they were not appreciated, not wanted, and he simply wished that they would pack up and bloody well go home.

His name was Ghandi, and the British Raj could not believe its ears, but in time that is exactly what was done, and the whole tide of Colonialism turned around. Being a colonial power in occupation became the embarrassment that it truly was and one country after another gave its former colony it’s independence.

There are some countries where things became irreversible, such as The United States and Australia. The British acted as badly in both countries concerning the natives, and then they even turned against themselves in the United States so that the British-Americans fought a battle against the British and won, declaring Independence Day on July 4th 1776. So, the poor native Americans and Aboriginies are stuck with their unwanted residents.

Most invading countries have given up their colonies except for a few small countries that actually prefer to continue the arrangement. In the case of Great Britain that called itself The Mother Country, it now finds that it has people living within its own borders who represent just about every country it ever occupied. There are very few pink bits left on the map. The last of its great colonies to revert to its original owners was Hong Kong. The largest and most significant colony left is Bermuda, a small island in the Atlantic with a static population of about 60,000 people. Bermuda is particularly interesting in that when Britain discovered it there were no people living there, and there were no claims existing on the territory.

A fundamental error was made from the start in that Britain deemed it to be a colony, when in fact it was, and is a truly owned territory as though it were located in the Thames. If the good Bermudian people ever get around to asking for their independence Britain will be faced with actually giving away a valuable piece of its property that it didn’t have to kill anyone for in the first place.

The other significant place is Gibraltar. That is quite another story and there is no easy solution to that one.

Copyright © 2009 Eugene Carmichael