I've always wondered about the origin of this saying, but this past weekend, I came to understand it a little better.
I just got back from a family reunion, which involved three generations of my dad's family. The term "reunion" comes from the same origin as "reunite" and boy did we reunite! Daddy's sister is the only surviving sibling from his generation and she was so gracious and loving to all her nieces and nephews. She gives a wonderful meaning to the term "matriarch."
I have a theory. You see, those three generations traveled to St. Louis to reune from such far-flung cities as Winston-Salem, North Carolina and Dallas, Texas. From Kansas City, from Little Rock. It took me two days to travel there. I went through parts of seven states. I added two state capitals to the list of state capitals I've visited.
Well, not really. I didn't really visit them. More like waved at the West Virginia dome as I flashed past it at 70 miles an hour. More like used the outer belt around Frankfort, Kentucky. But I'm gonna add them to my list anyway. It's my list and I'll do what I like.
So back to the theory. Since blood has so much iron in it, there must be some magnetic quality to it. There are poles in blood...a north and a south and they draw to each other. I should pose this theory to my cousin who runs a blood center, because she knows more about blood than anyone else, I'll bet.
So the magnetism of blood causes us normally sane individuals to leave jobs and responsibilities at home, drive for hours on end in a record heatwave, spend money at a pricey hotel...all for the sake of seeing relatives we haven't seen for 40 years. I mean, we've gotten along for 40 years without seeing these people. Why should we suddenly decide to get together, just because we share DNA?
Blood, that's why. Not the blood that causes some to be squeamish. But the blood of the tribe, the blood of the clan. We are programmed as humans to reunite with people of our blood. (I've often worried and wondered about foster children who find themselves "aged out" of the foster system. Where do they go to reunite? Where do they go to find blood?)
We found, despite the length of time in between our reunions, we could pick up just where we left off. Oh, sure, we had a few hours of bringing everyone up-to-date on the marriages we've had, the children we've sired or mared (if "sire" is the correct word for fathering a child, then is "mared" the correct word for having borne a child?).
After the catching up, we had a lot of laughs. Stories of remembrances of childhood. "Do you remember the time we came to your house for Christmas and Becky still believed in Santa and we strung her along?" "Do you remember the time Roy fell into the creek?" "I can't believe Paul proposed to you like that."
There were some happy/sad memories as well. Memories of a lost uncle who served in WWII. Memories of a handicapped cousin who died suddenly at the age of 27. Memories of my dad, who died just recently but who was a favorite uncle to my cousins. We even went to the uncle's grave site, as none of us got to attend his services. It was solemn, but not sad.
I just hoped that the spouses of all of the cousins had a good time, too. When you're an "out-law", you don't have the memories that we have. Hopefully, they enjoyed hearing about their spouses' childhoods.
We even had time to videotape an interview with my aunt, talking about her childhood. It was a snapshot of that era, of that place. Even her children learned things about their mother they hadn't known or remembered. If only our ancestors had left us that legacy.
One of my cousins is all into genealogy. He serves as the family historian and I'm hoping that the records and photos and stories we exchanged gave him a glimpse into that generation of our family tree. We have famous people in our lineage. An organist who was a friend of Ralph Waldo Emerson. The personal physician to William Penn, who sailed with Penn on the "Welcome" and help found Pennsylvania. Well, okay, maybe not famous but friends of famous people at least. Two degrees of separation.
So this magnetic property of blood, heretofore ignored, is very real. Blood draws blood. Down through generations, the family tree ever expanding to include in-laws, out-laws, children and children's children and children's adoptive children. Familial relations include other people's bloodlines but blood related all the same.
My niece, who is adopted, thinks of herself as belonging to our family. I tease her about having inherited our family's clumsiness, our family's craziness. She's known no other family. We are all of the same blood. Blood is indeed thicker than water.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
You say toe-May-toe, I say toe-Mah-toe
What was I thinking?
Back in April, when I planted 24 (that's 24 with a twenty and a four) tomato plants, I was craving tomatoes. Those purchased in the store have a cardboard taste to me, even those which claim to be "hot house" or "vine ripened." (You know they're lying when the "vine ripened" ones aren't yet ripe and they are clearly off vine.) I also don't know where those store-boughts have been. Who knows what kinds of pesticides and such they've been sprayed with?
I understand wanting a bumper crop of tomatoes back then, when I had cravings, before it was 110 in the shade. But really, Char, TWENTY-FOUR????
Last year, I got on a fresh salsa kick. Practically every tomato to come off the vine (for real vine-ripened) got partnered with some peppers, a little cilantro, a little lime juice. Heaven. I completely lost my taste for El Paso Salsa. Or Frito-Lay. Or even one of those designer labels which makes salsa out of unnatural vegetables and fruits. Peach salsa? Truly unnatural. (Tho' I must confess my son makes a mean pineapple salsa.) Canning the salsa results in the tomatoes being cooked to death which doesn't taste at all like the fresh stuff.
The other Big Mistake I made was to plant mostly Roma tomatoes. For the uninformed, Romas are paste tomatoes. I envisioned making and canning lots of spaghetti sauce and tomato sauce to hold me over this winter. Too late, my elderly neighbor who I consult about all things gardening told me she never, ever planted Romas, on account of they taste like store-bought tomatoes. Mea culpa.
She's right, by the way. Don't ever plant Romas if you want a real tomato. Their only advantage is, they make a pretty dense sauce. But it tastes like you took store-boughts and made a sauce.
I did plant 4 Cherokee Purples which, I'm told, are on the same taste scale as Brandywines. Not only do they taste really good, they turn all shades of pink, red, purple and white. Truly heaven.
I also had some of last year's Brandywines volunteer, so I left them to grow. Or maybe they're German Johnsons. I even had something I call O. Henry tomatoes last year. So called because they were grown from a wonderful tomato I had at that restaurant in Greensboro called O. Henry's. I swiped the seeds off my plate onto a napkin and shoplifted them home, they were that good. They are later bearing than the Romas, so I'm still waiting for that wonderful, acidic taste that belongs to the lowly O. Henry's.
All of the above mentioned tomato varieties are called "heirloom"...that is, they breed true, unlike all those hybridized monstrosities which have bragging, bold names like "Better Boy" and "Big Girl" and "Beefsteak". Nope, these tomatoes keep their marriage vows and don't have red-headed children when their husband is not.
Did you know that, botanically speaking, tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables...that is, they are the product of a flower and a bumblebee? Did you know that the Europeans used to call tomatoes "poison apples"? They truly thought that tomatoes were poisonous, on account of they hadn't discovered them first. Stupid Europeans.
I also don't know so much about those folks who claim that our Universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. I mean, I could design a better world with one hand tied behind my back...particularly a world in which vegetables and fruits would ripen in the winter. That way, canning wouldn't be such a killer. Nothing I like better than to keep all four burners cranking on my stovetop when it's a record-breaking, heat-stroke-inducing day. Not.
I realize now that I should have stuck with last year's number of plants (12) and not bought any more cages. Because next year, I'll no doubt look at all the cages and think I have to plant that many tomatoes.
I further realize that I'm rhapsodizing at length about my tomatoes so I won't have time to go out there, collect all those Romas and make sauce when it's 110 in the shade.
Back in April, when I planted 24 (that's 24 with a twenty and a four) tomato plants, I was craving tomatoes. Those purchased in the store have a cardboard taste to me, even those which claim to be "hot house" or "vine ripened." (You know they're lying when the "vine ripened" ones aren't yet ripe and they are clearly off vine.) I also don't know where those store-boughts have been. Who knows what kinds of pesticides and such they've been sprayed with?
I understand wanting a bumper crop of tomatoes back then, when I had cravings, before it was 110 in the shade. But really, Char, TWENTY-FOUR????
Last year, I got on a fresh salsa kick. Practically every tomato to come off the vine (for real vine-ripened) got partnered with some peppers, a little cilantro, a little lime juice. Heaven. I completely lost my taste for El Paso Salsa. Or Frito-Lay. Or even one of those designer labels which makes salsa out of unnatural vegetables and fruits. Peach salsa? Truly unnatural. (Tho' I must confess my son makes a mean pineapple salsa.) Canning the salsa results in the tomatoes being cooked to death which doesn't taste at all like the fresh stuff.
The other Big Mistake I made was to plant mostly Roma tomatoes. For the uninformed, Romas are paste tomatoes. I envisioned making and canning lots of spaghetti sauce and tomato sauce to hold me over this winter. Too late, my elderly neighbor who I consult about all things gardening told me she never, ever planted Romas, on account of they taste like store-bought tomatoes. Mea culpa.
She's right, by the way. Don't ever plant Romas if you want a real tomato. Their only advantage is, they make a pretty dense sauce. But it tastes like you took store-boughts and made a sauce.
I did plant 4 Cherokee Purples which, I'm told, are on the same taste scale as Brandywines. Not only do they taste really good, they turn all shades of pink, red, purple and white. Truly heaven.
I also had some of last year's Brandywines volunteer, so I left them to grow. Or maybe they're German Johnsons. I even had something I call O. Henry tomatoes last year. So called because they were grown from a wonderful tomato I had at that restaurant in Greensboro called O. Henry's. I swiped the seeds off my plate onto a napkin and shoplifted them home, they were that good. They are later bearing than the Romas, so I'm still waiting for that wonderful, acidic taste that belongs to the lowly O. Henry's.
All of the above mentioned tomato varieties are called "heirloom"...that is, they breed true, unlike all those hybridized monstrosities which have bragging, bold names like "Better Boy" and "Big Girl" and "Beefsteak". Nope, these tomatoes keep their marriage vows and don't have red-headed children when their husband is not.
Did you know that, botanically speaking, tomatoes are fruits and not vegetables...that is, they are the product of a flower and a bumblebee? Did you know that the Europeans used to call tomatoes "poison apples"? They truly thought that tomatoes were poisonous, on account of they hadn't discovered them first. Stupid Europeans.
I also don't know so much about those folks who claim that our Universe was created by an Intelligent Designer. I mean, I could design a better world with one hand tied behind my back...particularly a world in which vegetables and fruits would ripen in the winter. That way, canning wouldn't be such a killer. Nothing I like better than to keep all four burners cranking on my stovetop when it's a record-breaking, heat-stroke-inducing day. Not.
I realize now that I should have stuck with last year's number of plants (12) and not bought any more cages. Because next year, I'll no doubt look at all the cages and think I have to plant that many tomatoes.
I further realize that I'm rhapsodizing at length about my tomatoes so I won't have time to go out there, collect all those Romas and make sauce when it's 110 in the shade.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Supremes
I am honored and humbled to have been selected to write this blog.
That is, I selected myself and you probably could care less about what I think of the Supreme Court. Fine with me, but I'm gonna blog anyway.
The intro paragraph in this blog is the standard issue response to many a Supreme wannabe after nomination. They all say the same thing...they owe it all to their parents...they are honored and humbled (occasionally they are humbled and honored)...little did they dream, as a frosh at Harvard Law School (occasionally Yale Law School)...blah...blah...blah.
I've heard a great deal about how Elena Kagan is the least qualified of any candidate in our lifetime. Except, of course, for Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall, and nominee Harriet Miers, who nominated herself. You may remember, she was on the search committee, looked around and decided she herself was the only qualified person.
It seems to me, ignorant woman that I am, that the qualifications should at the very least be a knowledge of the Constitution and the Law. Being as how the Supremes are always ruling on the Constitutionality of the cases brought before them and all. Having tried cases, particularly in Federal Court, seems to be of secondary importance. By this token, many law school grads (particularly those who aced Constitutional Law class) might make good Justices. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts made in Constitutional Law class?
Kagan represents a first for the Court. If approved, she would be the third concurrent woman on the Big Bench. It seems to me that we women should have 5 seats, since women represent 51% of the US population. I think that's a good percentage for every walk of life...women should be 51% of doctors, corporate CEOs, zoo keepers, accountants, Senators, every career. But that's just me.
What concerns me, however, is that if Kagan is approved, Catholics would have 6 of the 9 seats, with the rest being Jewish. Not a Protestant, nor a Muslim, nor a Zorasterian nor a Two-Seed-
in-the-Spirit Predestinarian in sight. I am a lapsed Baptist and Baptists used to be all into separation of Church and State. Not so much now. Catholics have throughout history been all into being really chummy with State.
Roe v. Wade has been in the cross hairs of the extreme Right for many years, but how do you suppose the Catholics on the Big Bench are gonna vote when that landmark decision comes up before the Court. The Pope could excommunicate them if they don't vote his way. Or send them to Purgatory. Or something else equally abhorent. Can you imagine a Court where some guy in white robes in Rome gets to decide on US law?
Harvardians (Harvardites? Harvardists?) have a corner on seats on the Big Bench, with Yalies a distant second. I hear Northwestern has a pretty good law school. So does George Washington. So does Tulane. So why don't we have more representation from other law schools? Seems kinda incestuous to me.
Which brings me to the subject of Court activism. Seems like the Supremes on the Right have been pretty activist, but Republican Senators are all concerned about Kagan (and Sotomayor before her) and their potential for activism. As in ignoring precedent and making law from the Big Bench.
From yesteryear, I remember learning in Civics class in high school that we have three branches of government...the Congress to make the laws, the Supremes to judge the laws and the Executive branch to execute the laws. The Supreme Court doesn't have a Constitutional right to make laws, but tell that to the Court in 2000 when they illegally decided the outcome of a Presidental election.
How would you feel about term limits for the Supremes?
That is, I selected myself and you probably could care less about what I think of the Supreme Court. Fine with me, but I'm gonna blog anyway.
The intro paragraph in this blog is the standard issue response to many a Supreme wannabe after nomination. They all say the same thing...they owe it all to their parents...they are honored and humbled (occasionally they are humbled and honored)...little did they dream, as a frosh at Harvard Law School (occasionally Yale Law School)...blah...blah...blah.
I've heard a great deal about how Elena Kagan is the least qualified of any candidate in our lifetime. Except, of course, for Clarence Thomas, Thurgood Marshall, and nominee Harriet Miers, who nominated herself. You may remember, she was on the search committee, looked around and decided she herself was the only qualified person.
It seems to me, ignorant woman that I am, that the qualifications should at the very least be a knowledge of the Constitution and the Law. Being as how the Supremes are always ruling on the Constitutionality of the cases brought before them and all. Having tried cases, particularly in Federal Court, seems to be of secondary importance. By this token, many law school grads (particularly those who aced Constitutional Law class) might make good Justices. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts made in Constitutional Law class?
Kagan represents a first for the Court. If approved, she would be the third concurrent woman on the Big Bench. It seems to me that we women should have 5 seats, since women represent 51% of the US population. I think that's a good percentage for every walk of life...women should be 51% of doctors, corporate CEOs, zoo keepers, accountants, Senators, every career. But that's just me.
What concerns me, however, is that if Kagan is approved, Catholics would have 6 of the 9 seats, with the rest being Jewish. Not a Protestant, nor a Muslim, nor a Zorasterian nor a Two-Seed-
in-the-Spirit Predestinarian in sight. I am a lapsed Baptist and Baptists used to be all into separation of Church and State. Not so much now. Catholics have throughout history been all into being really chummy with State.
Roe v. Wade has been in the cross hairs of the extreme Right for many years, but how do you suppose the Catholics on the Big Bench are gonna vote when that landmark decision comes up before the Court. The Pope could excommunicate them if they don't vote his way. Or send them to Purgatory. Or something else equally abhorent. Can you imagine a Court where some guy in white robes in Rome gets to decide on US law?
Harvardians (Harvardites? Harvardists?) have a corner on seats on the Big Bench, with Yalies a distant second. I hear Northwestern has a pretty good law school. So does George Washington. So does Tulane. So why don't we have more representation from other law schools? Seems kinda incestuous to me.
Which brings me to the subject of Court activism. Seems like the Supremes on the Right have been pretty activist, but Republican Senators are all concerned about Kagan (and Sotomayor before her) and their potential for activism. As in ignoring precedent and making law from the Big Bench.
From yesteryear, I remember learning in Civics class in high school that we have three branches of government...the Congress to make the laws, the Supremes to judge the laws and the Executive branch to execute the laws. The Supreme Court doesn't have a Constitutional right to make laws, but tell that to the Court in 2000 when they illegally decided the outcome of a Presidental election.
How would you feel about term limits for the Supremes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)