I finally got to the New 7 Wonders of the World website. I've been meaning to do this for over a year now. Someone decided that since we had 7 wonders of the ancient world, we needed 7 wonders of the modern world, so they created a whole foundation and put up a website where anyone in the world can vote. I missed the initial voting, where you could nominate wonders, but there is still time to vote on the final candidates - voting ends July 6th.
Looking at the candidates - from the Acropolis in Athens to the mud skyscrapers in Timbuktu - I had to really think about what a "wonder" is. I didn't want to vote just because I liked something or because it symbolized something important. A wonder should be something that really inspires awe, either through technological engineering, such as at Stonehenge, or through overwhelming beauty such as at the Taj Mahal. Size can be awesome as well, as I have found at the Pyramids of Ghiza. I knew they were big, but it wasn't until I actually saw them rising above a city street outside Cairo that I realized just how impressive they were. BTW, the Pyramids are only an honorary wonder because they were part of the original 7 and are disqualified.
So here are the ones I voted for, and the reasons.
Acropolis, Athens - an awesome beauty created by monumental size and precise engineering. I have never seen them personally (I haven't seen any of the candidates in real life) but I can imagine how impressive it is.
Angkor Wat, Cambodia - this Hindu/Buddhist temple complex combines massive size with incredible amounts of detailed ornament.
Easter Island Statues - We are still unclear how these gigantic statues were made, or how they were moved, or how they were erected. It's a case of "how the heck did they do that," and "do you feel like those eyes are watching you?"
Hagia Sophia, Istanbul (be sure to click on the interior photo towards the bottom). Built originally as an enormous Byzantine church and decorated with rich mosaics, even the Muslims could not destroy its beauty. They converted it, whitewashed the mosaics, and made it a mosque. Today, it's a tourist attraction, one that overwhelms the viewer with size and beauty. And it is an engineering marvel as well - it has withstood earthquakes for almost 1500 years.
The Kremlin, Moscow - This is another one of those massive complexes, but for me it's the beauty of the iconic St. Basil's Cathedral that makes this a wonder. Built in the 16th century of wood (!) with those onion domes you only see in Russia, and painted with brighter colors than any other Christian church would dare, it's yet another example of beauty, size, and engineering.
Stonehenge - Not much to say about this structure except it isn't beautiful, but it is awesome in it's technological achievement and its spiritual power.
Taj Mahal - I chose this one for its sheer beauty. That's all. Just beauty.
The choices were difficult, but I could only choose seven. So here are a few of runners up (without the commentary). The Colosseum in Rome, the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, Machu Picchu in Peru, Chichen Itza in Mexico, Sydney Opera House. So, click on over to www.new7wonders.com and see which ones you would vote for.
I've been doing a lot of genealogy research lately. Ok, that's an understatement. I've been obsessively researching my family tree and a couple of other people's for the past few weeks. Since I can't seem to get a job in my chosen career, I've decided to work towards becoming a certified genealogist. There is just something so satisfying about tracking down family members and information. Ancestry.com has made all of the US Federal Censuses available up to 1930, and I have been delving deeply into their pages. So deeply, that I have decided I will give a workshop on census searching online at the Public Library sometime in August (date TBA). I love teaching, and I know I can teach people how to do this.
Just as a taste of what I will be talking about: even though the census is online, indexed, and searchable by just about every name, it can still be a frustrating task to find your relatives. I applaud Ancestry.com for doing this, and I find the monthly payment well worth it, but some of their indexers could have used more (or better) training on reading the archaic handwriting. Or at least, on knowing how American given names and surnames are spelled and which ones are common. One reason I have had such trouble finding some people is because an indexer thought the name "Summers" looked like "Simmers." Or they thought that "Hiram," a male head of household, was actually "Hera," a male head of household. I could go on and on with examples, but I think you see my point.
The other day, Ancestry.com launched their military records collection. All very nice, I'm sure, but I couldn't do any searching that day because the site was unresponsive most of the time. Still, it's a nice collection. It was a nice collection before the launch, too. My mother-in-law had told me about an uncle who died in one fo the world wars and was buried in France. It sounded like she didn't really know much about him. But when I actually found his casualty record - Joseph Samadulsky, died 3 March 1945 - and told her about it, she said oh yes, he was one of her favorite uncles as a small girl. Finding concrete information about relatives can change your whole perspective on your family. The DH was excited to hear about this hitherto unknown uncle of his. He has written a Memorial Day piece about his great-uncle Joe. My husband, writing about his family. That's different.
Last night I was watching a news show about Taboos in America. The only part I saw in its entirety was about this American woman living in England - Helen Kirwin-Taylor - who wrote an article for the Daily Mail entitled, Sorry, But My Children Bore Me to Death!. Apparently, she was surprised at the response. On one hand, there were many women who agreed with her, and were glad to feel they weren't the only ones. On the other hand, there were the people who considered her an unfit mother.
I lean more towards the other hand, though I know plenty of women on the one hand. I have always been appalled at the way some women talk about their kids as if they are just a burden. They all claim to "love their kids as much as any mother," but they don't want to spend time with them. When you find you don't want to spend time with your husband, don't you start thinking maybe this marriage is over? Why don't we think of the love of our children in the same way?
At one point Ms.Kirwin-Taylor says:
It's as though motherhood is an exclusive private club and everybody is a member except for us few. But then, kids have become careers, often the Last Career, for millions of women who have previously trained for years to enter professional fields of business. Consequently, few of those women will admit that they made a bad, or — worse — a boring career move to motherhood.
Yes, I guess I'm one of those mothers who made motherhood a career. But I have never once thought it was a "bad" or "boring" career move. I enjoyed the time spent with my son, once he started to be more than an eating/sleeping/crying/pooping machine (about 6 months old). I really was fascinated with this tiny person. I remember putting a purse or diaper bag on the floor next to him and watching him explore each and every item he pulled out. Fortunately, he was never one of those babies that put everything into his mouth. I loved reading to him at night, and did it from the time he was several months old until he was able to read Harry Potter on his own (then I had to read Harry Potter on my own). And when it came time to do the whole kindergarten thing, I felt lonely when he was gone. I was happy to homeschool him when the time came, and though he can be a real pain in the ass, I was glad to do it.
Now, he only has one more week of his freshman year of high school. I am extremely proud of how well he has made out after all the trauma of this past year.
Back to Ms.Kirwin-Taylor, who talks about making her children fit into her life and not letting them be the center of her world. My mother was that kind of mother. I loved her, and I know she loved me, but she was always more of a buddy than my mother. My older sister didn't even get that much from her, and resents it to this day. I prefer to be a mother first, and a friend second. Notice how I said "mother first." Ms. Kirwin-Taylor would probably think I was in denial about my incredibly boring life. She would be wrong.
Ms Kirwin-Taylor feels vindicated in her feelings by this:
All us bored mothers can take comfort from the fact that our children may yet turn out to be more balanced than those who are love-bombed from the day they are born.Research increasingly shows that child-centred parenting is creating a generation of narcissistic children who cannot function independently.
'Their demand for external support is enormous,' says Kati St Clair. 'They enter the real world totally ill-prepared. You damage a child just as much by giving them extreme attention as you do by ignoring them altogether. Both are forms of abuse.'
Perhaps there is some truth to this. But ultimately, it comes down to what kind of mother you WANT to be. Your kids are going to complain about you when they grow up no matter what you do: there will always be something you "did wrong." So, just be the best mom you can and hope it works out for the best. I'm sure Ms. Kirwin-Taylor's kids are perfectly well-adjusted, but I bet they wish she had taken more of an active roll in their childhood.
Funny, my son thought for a while that I was TOO active in his childhood. I guess I'll be hearing that when I'm old and gray. Meanwhile, I have learned to back off. I let him go off to school every morning, knowing he has learned how to get along and that things will be fine. But I admit, I still wait eagerly for him to come home and tell me about his day. He doesn't, of course. He's a teenager. He comes home and disappears into his room. Does the fact that I crave his attention say something about my own deficiencies? No doubt, but I am the mother I chose to be, and IMHO, it's a better choice than the one the bored woman chose.
I had been hearing about this TV show for a while, and had been dying to see it. Unfortunately, it has not been picked up by any of the American stations. What is it? Torchwood is a Dr.Who spin-off, but this is definitely NOT Dr.Who. Torchwood is very adult - seems the Brits like sexy TV even more than we do.
Torchwood is a shadowy government agency set up by Queen Victoria after a particularly nasty encounter with werewolves and the Doctor. The group collects aliens and alien artifacts, and deals with all things supernatural. They are headed by Captain Jack Harkness, an American with a shadowy past of his own, who was introduced in a few episodes of Dr. Who (the first season of the most recent incarnations). Jack Harkness is VERY hot, which is not so unusual considering that the sexual tension amongst the 5 members of Torchwood is so thick you could cut it with a knife. These people will sleep with anything. This last season had woman-on-woman, man-on-man, lots of hetero sex, and a good deal of sex with aliens. Like I said, NOT you mother's Dr.Who. The writing is really good. You know how some shows are so formulaic that you know what's going to happen next because it's just like last week's show? (I'm thinking of House in particular right now). Well, you don't see that here. Each show is different from the last.
So, where did I get to see this wonderful TV series? Not on DVD, because it hasn't been released in the states yet (only in PAL format - whatever that is). Nope, saw all 13 episodes here, a site which seems to have quite a lot of bootleg TV shows. Normally, I won't watch TV on my computer - I prefer my big-screen TV and a comfy couch. But I have no idea when - if ever - this show will come to the US. It's just too different. I suppose BBC America might show it at some point, but who wants to wait that long when you can see it now? It's certainly worth watching, if you have a high-speed connection, that is.
Post Script: one thing I find amusing and even fascinating is that the show is set in Cardiff, Wales. How many shows can you name set in Cardiff?!?! Don't get me wrong, Cardiff is a stunningly beautiful city from what we have seen of it. A brand new city center that I imagine they are very proud of, and a gentrified waterfront. Still, you have to admit that it's unusual. Cardiff isn't exactly the center of anything. Maybe this is the start of their bid for a shot at the big time - London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Cardiff. Oh, yeah.
According to this survey, I am a CONNECTOR. Apparently, I'm right up there when it comes to being connected and up-to-date with technology. It actually surprised me a bit - I figured I would score somewhat lower on that hierarchy (connector is just below omnivore, which is the highest.)
Connectors make up 7% of the American public.Basic Description
The Connectors’ collection of information technology is used for a mix of one-to-one and one-to-many communication. They very much like how ICTs keep them in touch with family and friends and they like how ICTs let them work in community groups to which they belong. They are participants in cyberspace – many blog or have their own web pages – but not at the rate of Omnivores. They are not as sure-footed in their dealings with ICTs as Omnivores. Connectors suspect their gadgets could do more for them, and some need help in getting new technology to function properly.Defining Characteristics
Connectors combine a sense that information technology is good for social purposes with a clear recognition that online resources are a great way to learn new things. Their cell phones have a lot of features, and they also try new things with technology; more than half have watched TV programming on a device like a laptop computer or cell phone.Who They Are
Connectors, which make up 7% of the population, have a median age of 38, with a majority (54%) in the 30-49 age range. Ethnically, it is mostly white (72%); 16% are Black and 12% are English-speaking Hispanics. The typical Connector has been online for 9 years, which suggests they were a second-wave of late 1990s adopters. Most are women (55%) and they rate above average in educational attainment and income.
That's pretty close to the truth, but although I "suspect [my] gadgets could do more for [me]," the reason I don't do more is because I don't feel the need for so much technology, not because I feel I need help with it. I like figuring things out on my own. I don't need help, thankyouverymuch!
Thanks to the Annoyed Librarian (who is a bit miffed at being called a "lackluster veteran.")
Apparently, Ceely's Modern Usage isn't quite dead yet. We have a new post!
There is a new animated video series on the web called "Afterworld." It consists of 2-3 minute installments of a sci-fi story set in a post-apocalyptic world. So far there are 10 installments on YouTube, and they promise to make more soon. Russell Shoemaker, a Seattle tech salesman, is caught in NYC when 99% of the population vanishes and all technology stops working. These first 10 episodes are basically the prologue, as we will follow him on his 3000 mile journey back to Seattle to see if his family survived.
I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic stories. Here are the ones I can name off the top of my head: "The Omega Man," "The Last Warrior," "The World, The Flesh and the Devil," "A Boy and His Dog," several episodes of "Twilight Zone," "A Canticle for Liebowitz." There are lots others, but that's just what I can come up with now. And no, I have not read the Left Behind series. It's a ridiculous idea fabricated in the 19th century with no real basis in scripture. The Daily Kos published a good look at this last year.
As for "Afterworld," I'll reserve judgement until I've seen more than 20 minutes worth. Apparently, there are 150 episodes planned. Sounds interesting.