Message Forum

Welcome to the Watterson High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

10/31/17 05:46 PM #2160    

 

Frank Ganley

I can't wait to hear about my Kennedy comment. That point is his father a ruthless irishmzan thug , bootlegger, gsmgster turned nice guy used his money to enter politics thereby legitimizing his ends justify the means. If Jack Kennedy was alive todsay he is a republican, . 


10/31/17 06:35 PM #2161    

 

David Mitchell

Would somebody let me know when we get back to the part about the ferol hogs or the castng ponds?

 

(and do you spell it Scarlet and Grey, or Gray?)  Nina??  Class??  Anyone??


10/31/17 06:50 PM #2162    

 

Joseph D. McCarthy

INTERRUPTION, INTERRUPTION.

Donna, please tell us that things are not as bad as I keep hearing.  I believe that both sides need to back down and determine what is good for the country and the area or I think Spain may have another civil war, or worse.


10/31/17 08:05 PM #2163    

 

Donna Kelley (Velazquez)

 

 Nice deflect, Joe. smiley

After the central government nullified the declaration of Catalan indepence and dissolved the Catalan Parliament last week the unrest rose even more.  President Puigdemont and a few of his group fled to Brussels with the idea of requesting political asylum. He now says that he will not but he is obviously trying to gain European support for the independent movement and avoid arrest. Meanwhile the major independent political representatives, including those now in Brussels, have been called by the Supreme Court  to appear in Madrid later this week.  Some will face serious crimes including embezzlement (using public funds for the independent movement, rebellion and sedition (15-30 years).   

The central government, now in charge of governing Catalunya, has declared official elections here for December 21st. This will hopefully help to calm the situation but unfortunately there seem to be more supporters of the independent movement than before due to the police violence on October 1st.  When you have a situation in which the politicians on one side fooled their people into believing that the voting on Oct 1st would be legal and the results would be valid and on the other side you have politicians handling the situation that day in the worst possible way nothing positive can come of it. 

People go about their lives but no one is sure what will happen. The uncertainty is stressful. Manifestations form around the city but they are usually peaceful.  The problems arise when the radical separatists or the radical ultra right appear on the scene.  No extremes are ever good. 

Thanks to all you friends who have reached out privately to invite us to stay with you.  Hopefully it won't be necessary and we can visit just for fun some day. Meanwhile I trust that peace will be restored to this wonderful region. After all we have our reunion here next year.

 

 

 

 


10/31/17 09:01 PM #2164    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

I do not know of any shy, introverted or humble people who have been elected to the Presidency of the United States. I also do not remember any President who has not been accused of lying by the opposition. Some lies are worse than others. Those would be lies that actually affect the lives of our citizens. Examples would be "Read my lips, no new taxes" and "You can keep your doctor...you can keep your health plan...the average healthcare premium will go down by $2500 per year" etc.

I agree with the statement that JFK today would be more in line with the Republican than the Democratic agenda because the majority of the Democratic philosophy now seems to be controlled by the progressive wing of the party. Bobby Kennedy, whom I was supporting until his asassination in 1968, would have even been more likely a GOPer than his brother. Both men had many faults, many of which were hidden by the press back in those days.

The faults and indiscretions of those in positions of power today are not only presented publicly by the media, but also too quickly and magnified to such a degree that they are often not validated adequately by the press, particularly the broadcast press. In the old days this used to be called "libel". Apologies to you, Mike, as I believe you to be an honest and fair reporter, but the profession of Journalism has lost much believability in the last decade or more. I will also be the first to admit that Medicine also has it's share of bad players, like all professions do.

In past posts I have expressed my reasons for supporting President Trump. He will always be called many nasty names but it is my guess that the opposition would find nasty names to call any of the 17 Republicans who were running for the Presidency if any had won the nomination and defeated Hillary Clinton. I also said that I doubt if any of the other 16 could have defeated her. President Trump is resiliant. Perhaps those old grade school playground adages, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me" or "I'm rubber, you're glue, everything bad you say about me bounces off me and sticks to you" applies here. (Tim, sorry, maybe riding lawn mowers should be added to the "sticks and stones" rhime!) I really doubt if the other Republican candidates would have been strong enough to withstand these attacks as well as Trump.

In regard to attacks on President Obama, one must admit that the majority of the press was not as hard on him as they have been on President Trump. There may have been emails and many private negative comments about him, but the number of public ones were definitely fewer.

President Trump has been described as a "counter-puncher". The press is not used to that. Polititians seldom use that tactic. Trump is not a polititian, he is a businessman as I mentioned in a previous post. President Bill Clinton was a polititian. He often put out feelers, testing some plans to see how the press would react, and then try to sell them to the Congress and the people. In his campaign Trump said he was going to do many things, including some major ones. He was ridiculed for some of them. I think what surprised the press, Congress and much of America is that he intends to keep his campaign promises. Wow, imagine that!

O.K., more trick-or-treaters on my porch. So far no kids in political masks. And, I might add, I don't believe our President is wearing a mask. What you see is what you get.

Happy Halloween,
Jim

10/31/17 10:21 PM #2165    

 

David Mitchell

Donna,

It occurs to me that you could be in a very perilous place - and very soon. I'm sure you know our thoughts and prayers are with you. 

 

Jim,

From what we read, it would seem that Lincoln was quite shy and humble, as well as extremely introverted. And maybe Gerorge Washington and Jimmy Carter somewhat also. Maybe a few others we are less aware of?


10/31/17 11:03 PM #2166    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

Dave,

It is hard to say about the personality traits of Presidents in the 1700's and 1800's but I would find it difficult to believe that a General who commanded the entire military in the Revolutionary War was very introverted or shy. Also, I have never met a shy lawyer. But, maybe Washington and Lincoln did not fit the usual molds for their professions. I probably should not judge whether either possessed the virtue of humility.


When I composed that last post I did consider whether President Jimmy Carter may be an exception. He certainly was a soft-spoken Southerner who always appeared to be humble. I did not think of him as a strong or forceful leader, which, in my opinion, made him an ineffective president. However, he was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. I know the rigors that service academies demand of their cadets and midshipmen (the USAFA is virtually in my backyard) and the shy and retecent would be most likely to "wash out". But then I could be wrong.

11/01/17 10:56 AM #2167    

 

Mary Ann Nolan (Thomas)

Jim, I beg to differ with you regarding Bobby Kenney would most likely be a Republican today. You may want to pick up the new book “Bobby Kennedy A Raging Spirit”. It is written by Chris Matthews, a Kennedy scholar. Bobby Kennedy did go after thugs and bad guys but later in life he pushed for civil rights and that became his passion. Many wonderful stories about his compassion for the poor and downtrodden. 


11/01/17 11:00 AM #2168    

 

Mary Ann Nolan (Thomas)

Tim, I appreciate your Trump assessment and agree with you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and humor. And yes there are hippcrites amongst us.


11/01/17 11:08 AM #2169    

 

Mary Ann Nolan (Thomas)

Joe, I did read the NYT story on “The Children of Taum” I read the NYT.daily. There is an older movie titled “The Magdalene Sisters” which is a true story about the magdalen laundries. 


11/01/17 12:36 PM #2170    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

Mary Ann,

No one will ever know what RFK would have done had he lived. I do think he would have been elected President and been a good one.

Civil Rights is not an issue owned by the Democrats, in fact I think the Republicans, starting with Lincoln, have a better track record. Chris Matthews would probably never admit that, however. My opinion of course.

11/01/17 01:13 PM #2171    

 

Michael McLeod

Well as long as we're talking politics how about laying off finger pointing and addressing specific, long term, objective issues.

You may have noticed the news of the EPA being eviscerated by the current administration.

The work of scientists who study the effect of climate change and harmful chemicals on the environment is being systematically supressed. The only environmental studies now allowed in the agency that is meant to protect us, and the earth, will from now on be authored by scientists whose work is funded by companies who di not have our best interests at heart.

Doesn't this bother you? I'm especially interested in, say, a doctor's perspective.

I can provide more of the facts but they are readily available in news stories about what Trump has done to disable science and replace academic researchers with industry shills, including the man who now runs the epa.. 

.

.


11/01/17 03:12 PM #2172    

Joseph Gentilini

I agree with Michael in 2174. This administration seems bent on destroying any regulations that protect Americans from pullution: climate change, clean water, etc.  It is so anti-science that I don't understand why nobody stands up to this nonsense.  I could say more about Trump, but will refrain.  Joe


11/01/17 04:02 PM #2173    

 

Mark Schweickart

Jim-- Your comment about Republicans, starting with Lincoln, having had a better record on Civil Rights issues than Democrats, has validity for that stretch of time when for the most part, to be a Democrat was to be from, or sympathetic to, the old South holding firm to Jim Crow America in all its nastiness. However, all that changed dramatically with the coming of FDR and his moving the Democratic Party to adopt a far more Progressive agenda, and in doing so, shifted middle America into a Party very different than its Jim Crow former self. In thinking about what you said, I cannot help but be reminded of the line from John Prine's song, "Grandpa was a Carpenter" in which Prine says:

He was level on the level
And shaved even every door
And voted for Eisenhower 'cause Lincoln won the war

I can't help but wonder Jim if you, and Frank, and perhaps others who feel somehow sympathetic to Trump, are not somehow similarly hanging onto the Republican flag for old-times' sake? Consider this challenge:  I wonder if Donald Trump had won as a third party candidate, would you be so ready to don one of his "Make America Great Again" ball caps (which, by the way were made in China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh)? If this hypothetical third-party had swept into Washington with the same gang of oddballs, ranging from the dangerous to the lunatic  (Bannon, Sessions, Carson, Manafort, Zinke, Scaramucci, Kelleyanne Conway, etc.) and if Trump proceeded to clown his way around the way he has, promoting the same anti-immigrant, anti-healthcare, anti-environment, anti-free press, anti-Union, anti-intellectual, anti-lower and middle class, anti-global cooperation agenda, not to mention all his verbal gaffes and toddler-like behavior that provides all the ammunition writers for the late night comedy shows could ever hope for, I wonder if you would indeed be so supportive? Or do you perhaps cut him way too much slack because Lincoln won the war, or because you may believe that Reagan won the Cold War?

 

 


11/01/17 04:38 PM #2174    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

Mike,

Many of us were on campuses on 22 April 1970, the first Earth Day. It was my last quarter at OSU and I was finishing up various life science courses as a microbiology major. Long before that I was interested in the world and what made life tick.

The environment, climate, life on macro, micro, human, plant and animal levels are all related. Everthing contributes to the final health of the planet.

So, do humans contribute to pollution? Definitely. Do animals? Of course. Do plants? Certainly when they burn. Do microbes? Yes.

Man and beavers alter the environment more than most other animals but most other species also make changes. The difference is that man makes advances. Beavers still build dams and lodges like they have for millennia, birds build nests, ants build hills, elephants knock down trees and the list goes on.

Advances require energy and alterations in the landscape. Except for nuclear fission all energy has it's beginning in our sun. Imagine where we would be if we had not learned how to harness energy to build the world we live in today. All the sun's energy that is trapped in wood, coal, petrolium, water, wind and everything else can only be released for use at a cost to the envionment. The challenge is how to minimize that cost and yet maintain, even advance, our lives. Would you give up your refrigerator, transportation or computer?

Under the last administration regulations were tightened in America to, in my opinion, a ridiculous point. Many jobs were lost and families suffered. Other countries such as China and India continued to pollute much more than America ever did. The Paris agreement once more stacked the deck against the USA.

When we first moved to Colorado in 1976, inversion layers were common. As our coal-fueled power plants employed better technology and automobile engines became more fuel efficient those became less common. But our utility bills have soared. Some of the poorer segments of society have been forced to choose between heating their homes and food, medicine and other necessities. You can only imagine how that would affect impoverished countries.

There are no easy answers to such a complex problem. Some regulations are needed but until there are better ways to harness or produce energy (and I don't think wind and solar are able to power cities like Chicago, New York and New Delhi) regulations do more harm than good. We really need to look to nuclear power technology, develop safer ways to prevent melt downs and protect our plants and power grids from cyber and terrorist attacks.

The major pollutant I saw among my patients was cigarette smoke. Smog alert days caused them and my asthmatics many problems. But smoking and second hand smoke caused them more.

And that is this doctor's perspective.

Mark,

I am sorry that you have such a negative view of the Conservative agenda. Progressives often look at it as "anti-". I do not see it as such. Many of us believe in the Constitution, rule of law, faith in a free market society instead of looking to the government to supply our every need, having an immigration policy that is fair, legal and safe, preserving free speech and a free press, and religious liberty.

What I see in many Progressives is that they derive their power by keeping certain segments of our population on government programs and convincing them that they are victims of society. They promise them more and more benefits to get re-elected. That has been going on for decades and it has not benefitted our country or those people.

We needed a new approach. Perhaps President Trump can start that approach. I did not see any other candidates who were willing to do so.

I don't have a MAGA cap. Mine reads "Don't Forget My Senior Discount".

11/01/17 07:11 PM #2175    

 

Mary Margaret Clark (Schultheis)

Sticking my neck out here.....................

 

I have been reading with great interest the various posts regarding the political climate, especially here in the U.S. or "Murica" as Tim would say.  I have debated about weighing in, and even now I am somewhat reticent about sharing anymore of my personal political views.  That being said, I will however, express my fears that we are headed to a very dark place in the history of this nation.  Certainly we have endured grave turmoil in the past, however, political correctness, identity politics, multi-culturalism, and secular humanism are all forces which are undermining the foundation of the constitutional republic which has been entrusted to us and the freedoms attached to it.  The prevailing wisdom of the Founders was that no one, and that includes government, should be entrusted with too much power.  Societies the world over, and from time immemorial, have experienced the misery of knowing what happens when citizens believe that if they only give enough power and money to those powerfully anointed (insert government) and surrender their freedoms, all of their problems will disappear and social justice will finally be accomplished by those who think they know best.

 

For me personally, I simply try now to align myself with whomever speaks to the principles of the individual and not the collective; with whomever seeks to create a welcoming climate where private property and owning a small private business can be achievable dreams; with whomever upholds virtue and integrity as righteous and good; and with whomever professes a belief in God as our Creator and the giver of all of our inherent human rights.

 

I know that none of this speaks directly to any of the specific topics of any given post, nor does it speak to the personal character traits of anyone currently holding public office, but should I find the courage to speak out on any future topic, perhaps this post will provide some basis for my own personal perspective.  One final thought that I recently shared with another classmate…and I will paraphrase this quote, "To loosely quote George Washington, government is force, it is not reason.  It is a necessary evil that is meant to help lightly guide imperfect human beings in an imperfect world towards truly enjoying their God-given rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The original principles of the country are guided by the premise that government is limited to protect the rights of the people, not to provide them everything they want or need."   And to that last point, lest anyone believe that I am not advocating for compassion; it is also my belief that when charity is mandated by the government, then that is not individual choice…it is government force.  Charity in that instance, can in no way be seen to be given out of any measure of love, therefore, it is not true compassion. 

 

And now I will turn my attention to the World Series even though my beloved Yankees were finally beaten down.  I actually stayed awake until 1:30 the other night watching the Astros and Dodgers duke it out in a 10 inning 13-12 thriller.  After the Buckeye comeback win on Saturday, I am becoming too accustomed to being entertained so spectacularly!!! 

 

 


11/01/17 11:53 PM #2176    

 

David Mitchell

Sounds to me like a lot of different voices out there.

   (but all gone to look for the same thing) 




11/02/17 09:49 AM #2177    

 

Fred Clem

Image result for houston astros

Great World Series. 


11/02/17 12:37 PM #2178    

Timothy Lavelle

Hey Mike, or Jim, or anyone...

As a confirmed clown, I long ago removed several layers of 'filter' from my writing voice. If the outcome of that was to insult a classmate then my humor has fallen flat.

Mike, I apologize if I said anything that you or Sheila or any journalist or physician or chimney sweep would take as pointing a finger. I have many opinions but none of them include thnking my fellow classmates are to blame for the state of the state currently. It doesn't really matter that I enjoy your commentary in the forum, I am not the moderator...pretty sure someone else has already made a badge for himself with that title....see, there I go making a joke and even as I write I can hear whispers of "Jeez, LaVelle, give it a rest".

So, "Sorry". But like Roseann Rosannadanna, if you weren't offended by me...."never mind". 

HYPOCRITE: Definition:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
 
Wow, with a definition like that first one, I must admit that I may be the greatest hypocrite of all time. Enjoy this moment of humility. No doubt next week I will write something to offend at least some of you. Party on all.

11/02/17 01:19 PM #2179    

 

Michael McLeod

I didn't have anybody in particular in mind with the finger-pointing remark. I was simply introducing a subject I wanted to talk about rationally, without bringing personalities into it. Thinking back I realize I was talking to myself as much as to anybody else, because I absolutely despise Donald Trump for so many reasons, and it's an effort to tamp it down and talk, logically, about specific steps that I disagree with on a rational basis - as in letting the foxes run the henhouse at the EPA.

 

 


11/03/17 11:38 AM #2180    

 

John Maxwell

I have a real love of nature. This time of year is so invigorating. The smells, the colors, the holidays, the food, the smell of a burning fire, all linger in ones senses for a brief but pleasant time. Enjoy the holidays everyone, with friends and families. Celebrate every day. I felt I should give my opinion.

11/03/17 11:55 AM #2181    

 

Mark Schweickart

Tim-- Since you are owning up to being a hippo-crip, how's your fat self doing these days with that busted leg of yours?


11/03/17 03:13 PM #2182    

 

Michael McLeod

 

Here's what the press is "not used to," as you put it, Jim.

An administration that is willfully oblivious to a global catastrophe.

Being tough is admirable. Trying to bully your way through the truth is not.

mm

 

WASHINGTON — The Earth is experiencing the warmest period in the history of civilization and humans are the dominant cause of the temperature rise that has occurred since the start of the 20th century, according to an exhaustive scientific report unveiled Friday by 13 federal agencies. The report was approved by the White House, but it directly contradicts much of the Trump administration’s position on climate change.

Over the past 115 years global average temperatures have increased 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, leading to record-breaking weather events and temperature extremes. The global, long-term warming trend is “unambiguous,” the report says, and there is “no convincing alternative explanation” that anything other than humans — the cars we drive, the power plants we operate, the forests we destroy — are to blame.

The findings come as the Trump administration is defending its climate change policies on several fronts. The United Nations convenes its annual climate change conference next week in Bonn, Germany, and the Trump delegation is expected to face harsh criticism over President Trump’s decision to walk away from the 195-nation Paris accord on climate and top American officials’ stated doubts about the causes and impacts of a warming planet.

 

 


11/04/17 04:37 AM #2183    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

Mike,

It is my understanding that President Trump is willing to renegotiate the Paris Accords to insure that America gets a fair deal. President Obama was not a good negotiator for our country.

In regard to global warming I think that many people on the left have pushed their agenda too far. 

If one looks at the geologic and climate history of earth one will find the earth to be more resiliant than some would lead us to believe. We are currently in an interglacial era. After the last cold spell ended and the earth began to warm, it produced the five Great Lakes in the USA as well as other bodies of water. Now that was real global warming! Man did not cause that.

There have been many natural events that have produced catastrophic changes in our planet, The dinosaurs were eliminated by something, a meteor or volcanoes are suspect, and the earth recovered. If - actually when - Yellowstone blows that could cause mass extinction, perhaps of our human race.That should be more frightening to us than our current situation. Perhaps we should spend our money and resources discovering ways to depressurize volcanoes!!?? Hey, if we could do that, just think of the energy we could harness to run our country for centuries.

Back in the '70's there was a concern about global cooling. Some scientists even believe that CO2 excess was a result of that (I am unsure of the reason, however). Granted, many scientists feel that CO2 is the main cause of global warming but there are others who disagree. There may be other substances involved as well as the natural forces of the universe such as variations in the earth's orbit.

Carbon Dioxide excesses have helped plant growth which is a good thing. That is not to say that it is not harmful in other ways. Should man reduce our CO2 output? Of course, and there have certainly been efforts to do so. But there has to be a balance which should not be based on scare tactics that are, at best, uncertain.

Do I deny climate change is occurring? No. Do I think man is a part of it? Yes. Do I think man is the major part of it? No. I guess I look at things from a much broader viewpoint.

As one who likes to photograph the beauty of our earth, I am certainly concerned about pollution of water, air and the land. I believe we can both advance our need for energy and take care of mother earth. New ways of oil and gas exploration and new technologies have helped that search. Again, there are trade-offs both enviornmentally, politically and economically. But some groups appear to want to take us back to an era that is no longer compatable with modern life. I certainly do not have the answers. I do not think the scientists yet have the answers. And I know that the poititians don't have the answers.

Earth seems to have the ability to heal itself. Let's just pray that man can practice a little "preventative medicine" to tame the boiling cauldrons below us as well as deal with the space above us.

Jim


11/04/17 11:32 AM #2184    

 

Michael McLeod

I'd rather be safe than sorry, given that this is the only planet we have so far.

So I'll be back later with more specifics on disappearing species and climate change.

In the meantime let's change the subject to nostalgia. Here is a column I just wrote. Rollins College is a beautiful liberal arts college in Winter Park, Florida, which is north of Orlando.

 

Ben Hudson is a newly-hired Rollins College English professor whose class is in bad taste. Not bad taste as in socks with sandals, gardens with gnomes and prison tattoos. Bad taste as a theme in his writing classes.

It’s a strategy he’s used since his days at the University of Georgia, where he taught undergraduates while earning his PhD.

He starts by assigning the works of notable arbiters of taste, from 60’s counter-culture firebrand Susan Sontag to Immanel Kant, an influential 18th century philosopher who argued that our perception of what is in good taste is utterly illogical.

In Kant’s view, when something strikes us as beautiful –  a person, a painting, a view – our response is purely emotional. There’s no arguing with us. De gustibus non est disputandum, said the Romans, or as the aphorism of another era put it:  There’s no accounting for taste.

But Hudson is a southern-boy contrarian at heart, and what he really wants his students to see is that Kant assumed he and his homies – namely upper-class European males – were the sole judges of taste. Yet something perceived as bad taste by the powers that be can be a good thing, maybe even a revolutionary thing, and certainly something a good writer should investigate. 

So he asks students to write about something they ­dislike – a fad, a movie, a singer. For inspiration he has them read essays that celebrate outliers, such as a rave review of a kitschy Times Square eatery called “Senor Frog” by ordinarily snooty New York Times critic Pete Wells, who applauded its artful tackiness in decking out diners in balloon-animal headgear and featuring drinks in suggestively-shaped cups offered up by nonchalant servers outfitted with glow sticks and whistles.

On the day I visited Hudson’s classroom, at the end of an Olin Library hallway decorated with posters offering chipper grammatical warnings (“How To Use a Semicolon: The Most Feared Punctuation on Earth!”), he was discussing one of the patron saints of bad taste: John Waters, the  puckish filmmaker with a pencil-thin moustache who made underground movies celebrating bizarre behavior and outlandish characters in the early 1970s.

Hudson had assigned his students to watch a somewhat tamer film Waters made later in his career: “Hairspray,”  the original, 1988 production, not the 2007 John Travolta remake or the 2003 Broadway hit.

The story, set in Baltimore in 1962 against the backdrop of the civil rights movement, revolves around a television dance contest and the prejudice it generates against two teenaged contestants. One is overweight. The other is black, as are the musicians playing the songs to which all the kids, regardless of skin tone, want to dance, much to the chagrin of some parents.

It’s easy enough for anybody who came up in the 60’s to relate to the notion of a stuffy mainstream culture using musical taste as a bulwark against change. But in a classroom filled with 19-year-olds who had yet to be born when the movie, let alone its time period, came and went,  Hudson’s leading questions along those lines engendered long silences and puzzled faces.

 So he provided historical perspective via a black and white Youtube video from 1958. A familiar figure – well, familiar to me – appeared on the screen in the front of the classroom, his eyes wild as ever, his hair in a towering Pomade pompadour as he stood at a piano pounding a hotwire beat into its keys and howling:

LUCILLLLEEEE! Please come back where you belong!

I been good to ya baby please don’t leave me alone!

It was Little Richard, of whom John Lennon once said: “If you don’t like rock and roll, blame him.” 

Lucillllleeee! I could hardly keep my feet still. After all these years it still felt like a guilty pleasure. Surely the classroom door was about to swing open and we were all going to get hauled off to detention.

 But then Hudson switched to another video. Same time period. Way different music. It’s Lawrence Welk, a wunnerful, wunnerful big band leader with a heavy accent whose weekly television show featured catchy songs such as “The Beer-Barrel Polka.” He was as much a part of my childhood living room and every bit as exciting as its floral wallpaper.

For just a second there I had felt young again. So much for that. Meanwhile one of Hudson’s students squinted at Welk’s image on the screen and had a flash of recognition.

 “I know who that is,” she said. “My grandmother still watches him.”

 


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page