eym_sirius

I'm tellin' ya' --- Butts County.

Have you all noticed that these warnings usually start with BUTTS County??? I think that it's no coincidence that these same storms produce "damaging WIND"!

Take care FotoGirl!

SusieQ - that was one of the most beautifully articulated responses I've read recently on PCOM. Nicely done! I'd say that it's a perfect summation of this thread!

Diversity, no doubt. But that's just stating what is obvious to all. What is not obvious is the WHY that is behind everyone's attitudes. Have people stopped asking "WHY"? Do people just go with the flow of the pop culture and media hype without considering why? People seem remarkably uncurious and not especially self-aware, as they also seem to not be able to articulate their own WHY. I understand THAT they are fascinated with the monarchy. There's lots of talk of traditions, but people are largely unspecific about these traditions. They talk about pageantry, but can't really explain why that

I agree that they can celebrate the heritage and history. What I'm wondering about is WHY people here care about this event, especially given the fact that the individuals in question (royal family) would hold them in contempt if they were to ever stoop so low as to consider them as even worthy of their contempt.

What is the pagentry, tradition, the entire culture? What does that mean? The fact that there is conspicuous opulence? That does it for you? THAT they have traditions? What traditions, in particular, interest you? I understand THAT you are taken, but not WHY. What does it mean to "grow up on Agatha Christie", etc? You read the books written by people who had British citizenship? What is it about your reading that made you feel anything for England? British Literature was my favorite subject in college! But that made me feel zero connection with the country itself and certainly nothing to

Sorry, but the monarchy is just not applicable nor appropriate in today's world. Whatever usefulness the monarchy had at one time -- now it is a vestigial relic. You're right. Hype is hype and some people will do as they are told by those media types who control the direction of pop culture.

I don't think that anyone blames the queen for perpetuating the only life that she's ever known. But the idea that there are rules of behavior that place her at a higher position than those in her presence? One doesn't speak to her unless spoken to? Y'all will just have to excuse me for not celebrating a person who thinks that she is better than I. Sure the royal families engage in positive PR. What else to they have to do with their time? Would you really put a person up on a pedestal who holds you in contempt, based on their perception of your station in life? I understand people bein

Last one first - From Prince Charles' website: "The Duchess of Cornwall supports her husband The Prince of Wales in his work and role as Heir to The Throne, in addition to being Patron or President of a number of her own charities and organisations. " I'd say that seems to indicate that at least HE thinks that he's going to be King! The USA is uniquely blessed with rich natural resources (iron, coal, for instance, were mined to provide materials for the industrial revolution), large navigable rivers and lakes, and an expansive coastline for shipping internationally. The country was bu

No. You're the one with faulty logic. It's illogical to assume that the proper course of action is remediation or that I have made that suggestion. I'm saying that the power and wealth of Great Britain has come at the expense of indigenous peoples all over the world. That fact should carry with it shame instead of celebration! No one would argue that there are nations around the world that are just as primative, in comparison to those "colonized" by the British in the 1800s. Should we "colonize" them? Why not? It would bring civilization to an uncivilized part of the world. If colonization is

It might make a good story line - what would happen if the monarch tried to assert her/his political power. I have an idea, but I don't want to give the ending away. The Paris Hilton comparison works pretty well on one level - That both she and the queen got their fortunes and are famous because of who their parents were, not because of anything that they did. At least the elder Hiltons earned their money. The queen's family did not. The queen discriminates. Paris Hilton does not. Very old money came from colonizing countries that already had colonies of indigenous people. The Queen's old mo

It's kind of like Paris Hilton - that's the first name that came to my mind, too - except that Ms. Hilton's relatives earned their fortune in the hotel business. Prince William? His dad never had a job. Or his grandparents, or greatgrandparents. I think that just as some human beings are not lower in standing (i.e. slavery) people are not higher in standing, either, based on their birth. Can a person of color become the Queen of England? The Queen is a figurehead. That means that she hold no real power, but that of ceremony. She defers to the elected and the appointed to conduct the b

But that's so insulting - to think that people are so shallow that they do not think any deeper than, "They are "royal" so I should care. What does it mean to be a royal family? About all that I can think of is that they have money that they didn't earn, are famous for being famous, and seek to perpetuate a social system of inequality. Take Prince Charles. What does he DO? Why should he be admired? Or his mother? What does she do - what has she ever done? Do people not ask themselves - "Why am I doing this"? If not, then you're right - "That simple, really"

What I'm hearing is that people are interested in these things because there is pageantry and opulence. What I'm not hearing is WHY those things make the event interesting to one who is condescendingly referred to as a "commoner". What is it about pageantry and opulence? Is it that people's lives are so mundane that they get a real rush out of vicarious experiences? Do women fantasize that THEY are the ones with the enormous train flowing down the aisle of Westminster Abbey? I look forward to the day when they hold a royal wedding and nobody shows up to watch. If people stop genuflect

I have never understood the appeal of royalty, like the Queen of England and her family. Can someone explain why people are infatuated with the soon-to-be-married royal couple? The family is rich, but they did not earn the money. The story of their lives is not inspirational, because they didn't do anything to become who they are. In a society that professes to believe in human equality, I don't see how that society can also embrace human inequality. There's also the phenomenon of media hype and how it has the power to shape YOUR opinions. You're TOLD to care about the upcoming royal wedd

Not even! Why would I give the time of day to a person who considers herself above me based on who her parents were? She's not "royalty" to me! Would "the queen" come over to my house for dinner? There's your answer. I disagree that "all the world loves a popular monarchy". I think that most of the world couldn't possibly care less. I also disagree that the British taking land from the indigenous peoples around the world is an "impressive track record". The present British monarchy has nothing to do with the foundations of common law. They are ceremonial, as opposed to functional. The conce

I'm just not into the whole concept of royalty. I understand the curiosity due to the hype, but I don't put anyone on a pedestal because of lineage. I guess it's just that I don't really care, despite efforts from media types who go to a great deal of trouble to try to convince me that I should.

Yes, or a watering pot.

Sorry to have dismissed your suggestion so abruptly, Animal. Let's look at this logically, putting you in my place. So, the drunk girl is at the door and you invite her in. You tie the dog's leash to the rail on the porch. The girl's pro-wrestling boyfriend wonders where she went and goes looking for her. Having "Fido" wait outside wasn't that great of idea, was it? Now -- see why it's better just to have pure motives?

That is hilarious!

It's going to be a great day. Have a good one, LT5!

You're not getting the picture. This dog is so big and bad that you don't tell him - he tells you! And besides -- my motives were pure, my character-resolve is absolute. And besides -- on rare occasions mrs_sirius reads pcom. I joke about this but I'm WAY past being tempted by any similar situation. I've had the discussion with a friend recently - There's nothing, nobody out there that could tempt me. It's just not worth messing up what I have. Mrs_sirius travels regularly. She's gotta know, absolutely, that nothing hinky is going to happen while she's gone. So it didn't matter,

She was sufficiently embarassed that she was so drunk that she didn't even recognized her own house and I didn't want to make her feel worse. But it was so random as to be remarkable. I would have been more of a gentleman and made sure that she got home safely, but that was a really big dog!

Just so you know, Animal, I'm a person with, as Subby said, pure motives. I would never have taken advantage of the situation. I'm a great neighbor and a terrific husband! I'm trustworthy and rock-solid in my character. Takiing advantage of the occasion never crossed my mind! Besides - She had a really big dog with her!