Wednesday, November 19, 2014


Get ready for a rant.

I signed into Yahoo to check email, and right there at the top of my news story list was something from the "Huffington Post" about Grandmas smoking pot for the first time. It had a picture of a video you could click on (which I didn't), and said:

"Three grandmas recently smoked marijuana for the first time and got high. It is the best thing ever. And don't worry, they didn't break the law -- Cut filmed the trio in their home state of Washington, where recreational use is legal."

All I can say is, "AAARGGGHHHHH!" I can't believe this! What is WRONG with people??? All the years I have spoken up against drugs, and how a grown adult should know better, etc. and these women, GRANDMOTHERS, smoke pot, and on camera for all to see??? They should be ashamed of themselves!!

What is even more disturbing are all the COMMENTS! Here is a sample:

Nothing new here! I'm 74 and smoke all of the time.

Ok, That was just Funny as it can get. Now get High and watch it again!! lmao

That was adorable.

It had me laughing pretty hard XD I would totally smoke with them.

My grandmother made home made preserves and quilts....lmao These are pretty cool ladies.

See, weed ain't so bad. It makes you happy, hungry, then sleepy. If more people got happy this world would be better place.

for a first time experience i would NOT recommend the wine... maybe after your used to it then try a little wine to see how they mix....

`i am for freedom. if you want to set yourself on fire go to it, but as a retired state trooper i can assure you some of the pot smokers will get high and then drive and kill themselves or someone else or both. i have already worked many of these accidents, so be careful what you wish for.

People who drink beer , they do kill people too ,after heavy drinking. I know you have see that every day..

Both my parents where pot heads, my childhood sucked because of it. (if your a parent) Remember you have a kids, if you don't have kids, SMOKE UP

Marvelous, thanks. Makes me wish I'd done this with my mom, but I'm too darn late in my case. But a great little movie, well done.

Omg, what a dangerous drug! Quick, re-ban it!

And the first time is usually nothing. Wait till your second time ladies. WOW.

I'm a Grandma who smokes too.

Funny. Now they should do the same thing with a roomful of grannies and grampas and young people. What a party that would be! I like the one in the middle.. she got mellow!

I love it...very cute...

James Clapper First time did nothing for me at all. Luckily I gave it a 2nd chance. Closest thing to God you'll find.

What is WRONG with people???? I was reading and finally found one comment from a state trooper who mentioned something about how pot smokers will drive high and kill themselves or someone else, and I thought FINALLY someone on this board is standing up against drug use. But then of course someone right after that said that pot only makes you MORE careful while driving. An excuse I have heard many, many times from pot smokers. And then there were the "Pot is safer than alcohol" excuses and how people drive while drinking beer. As if that makes it okay to smoke pot? As I have said, we shouldn't smoke pot OR drink alcohol! 

I can't believe this world we live in! Is there anybody else out there who agrees with me that it is terrible these women smoked pot, and that all these people were praising them and saying it was "cute" and talking about how they wish they had done this with their mom, and how smoking pot is "the closest thing to God you will find"? WHERE ARE PEOPLES MORALS AND VALUES AND MATURITY??? Most parents would croak if their child grew up to smoke pot! Most parents try to teach their kids that drugs are wrong, at any age! Yet these grown women, GRANDMOTHERS, are sitting there getting high on pot, on camera for all to see, AND the world is PRAISING them??? What kind of world is this??? 

I hate the Internet. I wouldn't even know about this if we didn't have it. 



Constance Waring tells me: 

You probably hear this all the time, and choose to ignore it. But, it would do you well to read Proverbs 31:6-7 where the bible instructs us to consume alcohol. It says, "Give strong drink to one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more." Also, Psalm 104:14-15 says, "Yet the simple joys of drinking were also sung. He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; And WINE THAT MAKETH GLAD THE HEART OF MAN..."

Gee, nobody has ever told me this before! Thank you! I will tell God he is wrong and drop out of my church. I'm off to the liquor store! 



skrillzist skrillzist wrote to me:
You are most likely a 50 year old Christian that thinks all drugs are bad and everyone needs Christ, weed should be legal because it's a fucking plant that's better than alcohol and cigarettes, you probably drink and think it's ok to get fucked up on alcohol rather than smoke a joint, can weed kill you no... Can alcohol kill you... Yes what do you think is better here smoking a j and feeling happy and on top of the world or get shit faces black out and potentially puke while you're sleeping and suffocate. I'm a Christian not a ignorant Christian that thinks weed is bad.... Now go pray to god about how rude I am and cursing maybe he'll tap into your brain and tell you which ones better....

My reply:

Wow, you are the first person to ever tell me all this! I totally understand now. I now see that weed can't kill you and that alcohol CAN kill you. I had always thought that since alcohol was legal, it must be okay. That's why I have spent all my adult hood sipping fine wine, drinking beer at football games, having martinis and cocktails. I have never said anything bad about alcohol! What a hypocrite I am. Oh, and I have never said anything bad about cigarettes, either. I figured if they are legal they must be okay. That's why I have smoked all these years. And it is good you are a Christian. I can see why you can be a Christian and use profanity and be totally in favor of weed. Weed is good. 

Thursday, November 13, 2014


Editor's Note: This is a blog I first posted in 2010. I thought it was worth rerunning, since nobody seems to have read it!


And I thought I was dense.

A recent Yahoo story about early pictures of humans proved to be a testament to just how clueless many people are when it comes to the history of photography.

The article is about a photo taken in 1848 by two men standing on one side of the Ohio River, and shows what appear to be two humans on the dock across the river. Known as a daguerreotype, the figures are blurry and look “see-through” due to the long exposure time it took to chemically treat the metal plates. As the article clearly explains, “If someone or something was moving within the frame, it wouldn’t show up in a daguerreotype photo.” I already knew this from looking at old family photos as a child, where the subjects were often blurry, and I have come across these kinds of pictures while doing genealogy research as well. The story also includes a link to an 1838 picture of a man on a busy Paris street, getting his shoes shined. Since he was standing still long enough, he appeared in the photo while moving objects did not. This is thought to be the first photo of a human and was taken by Louise Daguerre, the inventor of the daguerreotype process, the article explains.

I admit the headline of this story is a bit misleading: “Very Early Photographic Images of Humans Discovered.” It almost sounds as if the photo across the river is a picture of the earliest human beings in the world. But one would think that most people would realize this could not possibly be the case, and that they would read the story further to clarify the facts. However, after spending time on the article’s accompanying message board, it is obvious that LOTS of people jump to conclusions, don’t take time to read, and are totally ignorant of how pictures work.

I remember seeing that article when it first came online, and I was one of the first to comment, saying that I thought it was a very interesting story—and I meant it! I didn’t think anything of it again until the next day when I decided to check the board and saw that it was really jumping. I was so flabbergasted by many of the comments, I couldn’t pull myself away.

The most common misconception was that the photo had to be a fake because you could see through the people. One poster named Daniel commented:

“Hello?!? Do you guys honestly think those people are real? It’s kinda odd how EVERYTHING around them is well defined and distinguishable…and then the “people” look like two stick figures with round heads. See them through the boards? Get real, those look like planks…stacked up on top of each other laying in a pile on the bank. This photo is fake, at least some of it is anyways.”

“Airforcewife” said that “If these are real people, why can you still see the lines of the boards thru the bodies? Are they going to change the story and say they are ghosts now?? I think it’s a fake! May be a really old pic, but the people dont belong there.”

In the words of Cody: “Wait, this isn’t real…If you look very closely, they are transparent, suggesting, as someone said earlier, “painted on”. But you can be sure if they are real figures, that they aren’t part of a dock or something? I think everyone’s too quick to assume and not look at the fine minor details…”

Caitlin: “Why are they transparent? If I had to take a wild guess I would say this is a hoax.”

MacGyver: “I don’t know if this is just me, or do the “people” look see through? Just something I noticed.”

Honest: “if you look real close you will see that these guys were painted after. You can see threw this guys like they are transparent.”

Nonbeliever: “It isn’t people at all…am I the only one that can see through both of these “people” to the steps they are in front of??!!! Don’t believe everything you see..this photo may be old, but in fact the people in it are non existent!!”

Anthony: “Clearly a fake. I mean, you can actually see THROUGH the ‘person’ on the left. Some fact checking should be done before you post an article like this, shouldn’t it?”

Karen: “This looks like it was touched up or added at a later time.”

Kevin: “Anyone noticed you can see through them. These are the first ghosts to ever be photographed.”

JaclynB: “Am I the only one that sees that the two men are TRANSPARENT? Could someone clear this up for me? Or is this something paranormal?”

Kay: “They look like two ghosts to me – Can you say PHOTOSHOPPED!”

Keep in mind that these are actual quotes from real people, misspellings and grammatical errors included, that I copied and pasted into a Word document. I have not changed them in any way. I was so amazed, I had to save some of these as proof! Shortly after I had joined the board that second day, one man who had spent a considerable amount of time trying to help people understand how early photos worked decided to give up and leave. “You can’t fix stupid!” he declared.

But there were others who stayed on, myself included, determined to try. Take the “how can these be the first humans” misconception, for instance. Someone whose name I missed said, “I don’t get it, why is this so rare? Who else do they think built the buildings and the big ol ship that is floating there? Oh! And WHO took the picture!!!??? I honestly cannot understand ‘news’ somedays…good greif…”
There were many others who had the same thoughts. Here are just a few of them:

LadyD: “I’m still confused. Who wrote this article again? Of course there were humans!! HELLO!! Did you figure that out ALL BY YOURSELF or did you need help? 1848? Yeah there were humans then and WAY before then TOO!!”

Julio:  “what? Of course I can see a boat it got be people around, what is the deal whit this report,sounds stupid,if they took picture of the city it has to b some people in it lol”

Meme: “why is hs even news??? Hate to break it to you folks but PEOPLE EXISTED IN 1848. Big deal that the photogs didn’t realize THEN that there were humans in the photo. This article makes it seem like it’s so mysterious that human beings would be in early photographs when humans CREATED PHOTOGRAPHY EQUIPMENT. DUH!!!!”

Michael: “sooo the camera was invented before they thought humans were around…sweet…this is a stupid ass post”

Bourre: “The headline is ridiculous. Did an alien write this article? You reckon a human took the picture?”

Testa: “I had to laugh a lot about this one..!!Who do you think took this picture ?? A dog,, a cat,, No a Human.!! Boy that took some real”

Holly: “tHIS IS IMPOSSIBLE or a painting because i f it was first sighting of humans or whatever, who took the photo??!!!!”

Jonas: “wait how’s the guys take the pic if there were no humans?”

J: “what’s the big deal about people in the picture ? who built that ship and who took the picture ? animals? Give me a break”

Mizz Attitude: “Wow I dont understand why people r getting so excited or amazed about two people in an old picture..there’s a steamboat in the background if people didn’t already exist then who controlled the boat and I;m sure the buildings didn’t magically just appear and made a town out of the blue…come on people something like this isn’t really amazing..there were people way before 1848 and everyone knows this..the things that just amaze some people makes me laugh.”

And then there were the endless comments that these were “ghosts” because you could see right through them. Or, for the people who understood the see-through image, many said over and over that it looked like a marriage proposal, because one of the human images is on his knees. And people explained over and over that they aren’t ghosts and that it could not be a proposal because women wore long dresses then. (Many also rightfully mentioned that it could be one person rather than two, and that he just moved during the course of the photographic process.)

This kept going on throughout the day. Every time I checked the board, people were saying the same things, blindly posting their opinion without reading the story or the many comments before. And most of them thought they were the first one to notice that you could see through the people or that it looked like a marriage proposal or that someone had to take the picture of these “first humans.” Many of the same people continued trying to educate to no avail. Someone named “Dave and Sarah” said they were having “too much fun” updating the page and reading everyone’s comments. “Clearly most people don’t understand the process of the photograph or reprographics,” they said.

Oh, and then there were the “Why is this a big deal?” comments. Someone said how “it’s only natural that someone had to take the very first picture of a human but what’s that mean…It’s not like they took a picture of something extraordinary or anything. It’s a human being and last time I looked there are plenty of us around. Now, show me a picture of big foot, the loch ness monster or something that’s rare and hard to prove exists.”

Chava malka cooper: “if you can take a picture of a boat you can take a picture of people. Don’t know why they are so amazed at this ‘photographic image of humans’.”

Sirmaster2: “I dont get it. Who cares about the photos. Humans created those cities and towns in those pics. And they have been around for many years before cams were invented. So whats the point here? If this is exciting then you have seen nothing compared to what I can show you that no cam has ever photographed. Geesh. Wanna see a pic of the 1st maple leaf on a ‘man or woman’?? LOL.”

Lane: “what you mean there were people in that lil ol’ town holy s@*t you dont say…how strange???? this is dumb.”

Angelique: “I still don’t understand what the big deal is about the picture. Is it that is ‘humans’ are ghosts or what?”

And here is a sample of some of the attempts to enlighten:

Lonesilverwolf96: “The reason this is a big deal those of you treating this like its nothing, if it wasn’t for Daguerre and his talent we wouldn’t have the digital cameras and video cameras we all love to use on a daily basis. He was like the inventor of the “Wheel” in photography. It’s not earth shattering no, but have a little respect, no, gratitude for the things we have today. These pictures sometimes took hours to take and even longer to develop. We have come a long way to the half second click we have today. And besides, if art history doesn’t interest you, why are you looking?”

Robert: “To all of you who are incredibly stupid to say this is fake, these are ghosts, this is stupid or what is the big deal, please keep your ridiculous comments to yourselves and comment on articles that require less intelligence to appreciate. Anyone with a basic understanding of history, especially history of technology or history of photography, would appreciate this article. First and foremost, the picture’s authenticity is not in question. It is legit and accepted as such, so move on. Ghosts? Really? If you paid attention in school instead of playing your stupid video games and watching reality TV, you would know that photography is a new invention, going back to the early 19th century in France with cameras with such slow shutter speeds, that capturing the image of a mammal would be almost impossible since they move. That is why Daguerre’s original Paris photo, which most people should have seen at least once in their life, captures nothing but blurs where people and horses moved slowly, and one blurry man, captured on film only because he was standing still getting his shoes shined. It would not be until many years later that moving people would be captured on film, and at the time of this photo, there were no still photos of people yet produced. The fact that this is the first photo to capture a person in the United States is very impressive to those who appreciate history. If you have no clue about history or just don’t care, then go read a worthless article on a celebrity and comment on that instead.”

Rockngold: “Seriously are the people commenting here really this ignorant?! I’ve read stupid comments about of course there were people before this picture because where did the boats and buildings come from…other comments about why is this news worthy when we can do so much more with photos now…and countless comments with misspelled words. OMG! This article is of interest because it was in the earliest developments of photography when it was rare to photograph a busy town or street and have people show up in the pictures because non-stationary subjects could not be captured. Of course there were pictures of people prior to this when they were stationary, the interest is in the fact that these figures showed up in this particular TYPE of photograph. It is historical because of the development in technology of photography and the beauty of this early time in the art of photography, Its newsworthy and interesting for the same reason that many intelligent cultured people enjoy museums and art galleries…People PLEASE get a clue!! If you are really this ignorant keep your comments to yourselves.”

Robert (another one):  “Still ?? wonder this country is going down the drain..dumb people. Right after I explained the process people are saying things like,  Why are they transparent and Why aren’t there more people in a busy town? I am just a regular guy who works on cars for a living and I get it. Don’t you???? 20 minut exposure times burn an image onto a silver plate..equalls---nothing can move or it will not be in the photo. If you were there for half the time you would be half transparent….Got it now????”

But unfortunately many DIDN’T get it. I’d go away for a few hours, come back, and the crazy comments were still coming. A woman named Lyn attempted to get the more intelligent posters to throw in the towel.

“To the literate folks out there, please stop wasting your time in trying to logically explain anything about these photos to the numbskulls posting about ‘ghosts’ and ‘fake photo’,” she said. “You’ll just wear yourself out for nothing!”

I laughed and told her that I agreed, “But I can’t tear myself away!” to which Lyn replied “It’s like a train wreck isn’t it!!! LOL!!!”

By this time I also began to get rather snarky. I usually try to be considerate of people’s feelings and don’t make fun of them for personal matters like looks, weight, or intellect, but these posts were just sooo off-base I couldn’t help myself. On a few comments where people would say something like, “Am I the only one who notices that you can see through them?” I would reply that yes, they were the ONLY person to mention this, and that “wow, it really must be a hoax then!” Or I’d say that nobody has mentioned that before and they should get their vision checked. I know, I’m mean—what can I tell ya.

I did try to make some informative posts, but when it became apparent that trying to educate was fruitless—you just couldn’t keep up with the vast number of “numbskulls” coming in—at one point I made a tongue-in-cheek comment that this picture had to be fake because you can see through them, and if they are the first humans then who took the picture, and that of course humans were here in the 1800’s. “I mean, I bet they were around in the 1600’s even! Boy are you people dumb,” I added. I’m sure the intelligent people who had seen my earlier posts knew I was joking and got a laugh, but of course there were some who just joined and took me seriously. What’s scary, though, is that it sounded like one person partially agreed with my fake post. As Becca said, “You are so correct its takes a dumb person to think its real ,,I mean unless its ghost,,and besides there were people around before 600bc hello God created the heavens and the earth,,people get serious without God there was no history!!!!” The other person who replied to my comment asked if I was serious, and then gave me a stern lecture about how long people have been on the earth and how photography works. She also told me to not be a hypocrite. “You’re probably the dumbest person to comment so far,” she said. (I did go back and tell her that I was just poking fun at all the silly comments, but who knows if she ever saw my post. Oh well, I tried.)

Speaking of humor, or attempts at it, there were some comments that made me laugh:

Jon M: “It’s too blurry, couldn’t they afford a better digital camera?”

Art Vandelay: “It’s a shame this came out…the one didn’t want his wife to know where he was that day…”

RS: “You people disgust me with all your hair-brained theories. Those aren’t humans. They are the first water Martians to come out of from under the water in an attempt to populate the earth.”

Harry P: “My question is: did they get releases from these individuals to publish their image?”
And finally, Gary summed it up well: “I was going to leave a comment. Luckily I read some of the others and was instantly reminded that the comment rules at Yahoo specifically state that one must be committed to a state operated mental institution to be eligible to make comments. Wow, that was close.”

Let’s hope at least some of these people read the story and comments after they posted, and came to understand the true significance of the photo. I’d like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I did not see any evidence of that, however. Nobody coming back to apologize or say “my bad—I understand now, I should have read more,” etc. And the scary part is that these were just the people who posted on the board—think of all the other thousands out there who thought the same things but just didn’t bother to type it on the Internet! Whether it is because people are too young to know, just plain ignorant, or both—who knows. But after being on that board, I not only feel a little better about myself but I also see how truly uneducated many people are. My conclusion is that in order for them to “see the light” perhaps they should go into the dark—in the form of a darkroom—and develop some pictures the old-fashioned way!

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


I come home from a long day and find the cats all curled up together. So cute! Such a life.

Friday, October 31, 2014



Thursday, October 16, 2014



The new issue of ‘Teen Magazine finally arrived! Full of cool info about dating, hairstyles, makeup and fashion, and the latest on “Hollywood’s Swingin’ World” like the Righteous Brothers, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, and Bobby Sherman!

Okay, so it’s not exactly the new issue of ‘Teen. But it is new to me, and is part of an auction I won recently from eBay. Touted as “Young America’s Beauty and Fashion and Entertainment Magazine”, ‘Teen was and is popular reading for many young girls who rely on it to help them make the transition from child to bona fide young lady. Although not quite as slick and sophisticated as Seventeen, ‘Teen has its merits, and I remember enjoying this magazine in my youth. The lot I won, six issues from 1964 and 1965, was a bit before my time; I would still have been a little girl when they were published. But it was an intriguing era, a time of innocence and featuring stylish, feminine fashions just before the mod styles made their debut.

The photo above shows typical swimwear of the day. As you can tell, these suits had substantially more fabric than the string bikini, barely-there swatches of material they have the nerve to call bathing suits these days (see related articles below on modesty). I really like the swimsuit with the little pleated skirt—I’d actually wear something like that. I’m also drooling over this cute empire-style short-sleeved dress “softly accented with shirring and a fabric bow” in the June 1965 issue. And the model is wearing darling little white gloves, too! Oooohhh! And an ad from September 1964 spotlights “the many jumper looks of Bobbie Brooks.” I remember jumpers! I used to wear them! And I made them in home-ec!

These magazines are filled with images of schoolgirl skirts and sweaters, formal and sports wear, nighties and undies, shoes and purses and jewelry, worn by top teen models of the day like Colleen Corby, and all portrayed in extremely ladylike good taste, of course. Indeed, a letter from the editor’s desk cites some of the dictates of the dress code at a reader’s southern California school.

“Girls in 9th and 10th grade have to wear bobby-sox and white oxfords,” the rules stated. “No tight, straight or short skirts, no pullover sweaters, no capris at games, no patterned or black nylons, sleeveless dresses or blouses.” I remember the days of having to wear a dress to school. They finally allowed girls to wear slacks when I was in junior high, during one very cold winter when they were concerned about our bare legs. We all cheered!

Vintage advertisements abound in these magazines as well, for cosmetics (“It’s fun to mix 2 or 3 Cover Girl Lipstick Shades. They’re all just dreamy!”), shampoo (featuring the beautiful “Breck girls” portraits), and products buried at the back such as Wate-On, which promises to transform a skinny girl into a voluptuous vamp. I like the feminine hygiene ads, particularly those that claim their tampons are easy to use, “even for single girls.” You see, back then it was automatically assumed that if you were unmarried, you were a virgin. That’s just the way it was.

One of my favorite sections was “We-Get,” where readers sent their comments and suggestions on all kinds of subjects, from serious to frivolous. There were lots of opinions about that new rock group, The Beatles, where one girl said she had 104 pictures of the moptops on her wall (and was starting a collection of Dave Clark Five pictures as well). A teen from Wisconsin ranted about the censor bureau in Lisbon, Portugal finally releasing the film “A Hard Day’s Night,” but for ADULTS ONLY. “I knew you wouldn’t believe it, but it’s the truth!” she exclaimed, signing her letter “Glad I Don’t Live There.”

“Weepy”, from Waterloo, Iowa wrote:

I’ve read about girls who just had to cry when they saw the Beatles, and if that’s being a true, blue Beatle fan, I must be the most loyal one they’ve got in the United States! I cried real tears clear through the Beatles’ three Ed Sullivan shows and I wasn’t even viewing them in person! I do know what it is to be truly “lonely” for them. I cry when I play “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” because it brings back memories of the first time I heard of the Beatles back in January, 1964. I cry when some rat-fink gives our Liddy-puddle-lads a rotten writeup, or when I think of going drugstore crawling on foggy Sunday mornings, or when I think of Georgie Harrison turning 22 in February. So all you logy “B” fans out there, keep on cryin’ and more power to you, luvs.

However, someone who signed her letter “A True Beatle-Hater,” said that “all this junk about those Beatles is getting positively ridiculous as well as completely out of hand.” She said she used to be a Beatle fan, but now she gets sick to her stomach or laughs hysterically at the “retardation of Beatlemaniacs.”

“Those misguided females who say long hair (flipping up, no less) is masculine, obviously have a few facts mixed up that they’d better straighten out if they hope to live normal lives,” she said.

“Beatlebugged”, from Louisiana told readers that her head “is in one great big throb” because the Beatles were blaring away on TV. “What anybody sees in this hip-swiveling, guitar-playing, head-shaking, off-key-singing group is beyond me,” she said.  “I have one suggestion for them: Let your hair keep growing, because we can still see your faces! Don’t get me wrong. I consider myself a normal teenage girl. I like pizza, rock-n-roll, the twist and boys. But the Beatles—ugh!”

Finally, “Ex-Beatle Fan” from Stratford, Connecticut said she used to like the Beatles because everyone else did, but she soon lost interest:

You learn everything there is to know about them after reading ten magazines carrying articles on them. You even learn that Paul washes his hair every other day and that he has to shave twice a day. It’s not fun when the Beatles aren’t new and exciting anymore. There’s nothing to talk about, because everybody has heard everything about them at least five times. Their music did have a different sound that you thought you’d love forever. Now that sound is copied by so many other groups, it’s old stuff. It isn’t excusive anymore. Isn’t this really why the Beatles aren’t as popular or as great as they used to be? I think the world is just about through with Beatlemania.

I always knew those long-haired rock-and-rollers were just a fad.

Other girls wrote about their love for Elvis, the Beach Boys, and even the Osmond Brothers. “I can see why girls scream, faint and tear their hair out when they see him or are near him,” said one Illinois Elvis fan. “I do almost the same thing. I think he is the living end!! He is the most!!! The best all-round human being ever.”

“Call me some kind of a nut if you like but I really don’t like the Beatles!” said a New York youth. “In fact, I can’t stand them! My favorite group is the Beach Boys. They can sing (which the Beatles, Dave Clark Five, and Rolling Stones can not do), and they have wonderful personalities which they don’t hide under a mop of hair.”

Paula from Illinois preferred a certain younger set, and one that “doesn’t sport long hair.”

“They are absolutely top singers, though none of them is past fifteen,” she said. “I am talking about the Osmond Brothers, those four sparkling young men from the Andy Williams Show. I think that they are great, and I really wish that ‘TEEN would have something on them. Thank you very much.”

And here is a letter I could have written, from a girl who wanted more action for Illya, a new television heartthrob on The Man From U.N.C.L.E. spy series:

…No matter what, every week Illya gets sent to the appointed destination, via dullsville, while Napoleon Solo gets all the neat assignments and good camera coverage. Why?! I, for one, would prefer to watch David McCallum with that gorgeous accent of his. I realize he is relatively unknown, but please, “U.N.C.L.E.” producers, give us more Illya!

Readers addressed more serious subjects as well, like Donna from Pennsylvania who was taking up a collection for Vietnamese orphans, and a Georgia youth who asked if there is any organization that teenagers can join to bring about world peace. “I think we, as teenagers, should be concerned with the problems of the world,” she said. “After all, we will be leaders of our country soon. I don’t mean we should forget about being teenagers. I just think we should be more conscious of our responsibilities.”

Barbara Fuller from New York said that 1964 was a wonderful year:

…I was introduced to a new way of life: Beatlemania. Every day was like a new year in itself. The world was uplifted as people began to realize that we teenagers really aren’t as bad as some think. We care about world affairs—Vietnam, the Cold War. Teens played an important part in the elections: the Johnson girls, Goldwaterites, etc. They showed spirit that has been unequalled in the 20th century. Who says we have one-track minds? Just last night, after watching Shindig and writing Japanese form Haiku poetry for school, I went into my room to read “The Making of a President” to the accompanying music of a Rolling Stones album. Can you top that?

There were letters on typical topics such as beauty tips, curfews and phone usage. One teen asserted that a telephone is a public service and should be used with respect. “I don’t think Mr. Bell intended this small instrument to be used by chattering teens for such long periods of time,” she said. “It has always been my notion that it was to be used in emergencies and for things of importance.”

And of course there were plenty of letters and articles about what was probably the main thing on these girls’ minds, namely BOYS. Although I have a hard time relating to this subject, since no boys even talked to me up through high school, let alone called me on the phone, asked me to go steady or expected any sort of “necking”. The letters are fun to read, though, like this one:

What do you readers think about going steady? My parents and I have been arguing for months on the subject. I am for it, and they think it’s the worst thing in the world. I just try and try to explain that it’s all right and everyone goes steady once in their lifetime, especially in junior high, but they won’t even be reasonable about it. I need your help in trying to convince my parents, so write in your opinions. S.D., Galveston, Tex.

And then there was the “Dear Jill” advice column, where a Texas teen asked what a boy wants when he takes a girl out. “Of course I enjoy dating the boys, but I don’t particularly enjoy necking,” she wrote. “The boys seem to expect it and sometimes won’t take me out again. I don’t let them get anywhere but I would like to know if I am doing the right thing.”

Columnist Jill explained that what boys should expect is “not always what they DO sometimes expect.” She wrote:

…Let’s discuss what a decent fellow, who is mature enough to be dating, thinks about a date. He is attracted to a girl and he asks her out, hoping she’ll say “yes”. He takes her to a place he thinks she will enjoy and he thoroughly appreciates that she is a lady and knows how to behave in public. When he takes her home he feels proud that she has gone out with him and hopes she will again. The thought of necking is not involved. Our mythical boy likes this girl and she certainly returns the feeling, so their dates often end in kissing…but it’s because they genuinely like each other. Understand? Any fellow who takes a girl out and heads for the nearest lover’s lane is not the type of guy you would be interested in. He obviously doesn’t respect you, nor care about your feelings.

Got it, guys? Now be a mature, decent fellow and show some respect!

Jill also advised a young teen to not “chase” after a certain boy she likes. “If you are as attractive as you say, all you have to do is be friendly and then sit back and let him start to wonder if he can add you to his collection,” she stated.

One bit of advice Jill offered annoyed me, where she replied to a girl who lamented about not having any boyfriends.

“I have nice clothes, I’m cute, but fat,” the Ohio teen said. “All the girls seem to like me. I try to be neat, dainty and nice to boys, but no progress. I’m getting pretty sick of all my friends having fun and not me. What do you guys want, anyway?”

Jill’s response: They want a girl who is neat, cute, dainty, and NOT FAT. Get out the calorie counter!

I thought those were rather harsh words, especially to a young girl. First of all, I don’t think it is nice to use the word “fat”, and Jill also needs to realize that there are many people who will never be thin, due to their body type. And then she says to count calories, which goes against everything I have learned about weight loss (see articles below).

These magazines had serious articles as well, including fiction stories, sewing tips, and even a feature on the problems of attending an integrated school in Oklahoma City (with a subsequent letter to the editor from someone who disagreed with the article and said how she knew many teens “who wouldn’t lower themselves to dance with any of those Negroes…”)

All-in-all, I really enjoyed reading these volumes, and it captured an era of innocence, youthful optimism and concern for our future. The ‘Teen and Seventeen magazines I read in the late sixties are long gone, unfortunately. The only publication that survived my youth is a single issue of 16 Magazine, from July 1967, which I bought for The Monkees articles (and which I dug up again a few years later when I fell in love with Mark Lindsay and remembered that they had some photos of Paul Revere and the Raiders in there)!

Wouldn’t it be neat if we could just go to a store and buy magazines from the 60’s or 70’s or any time period we wanted? The decades before us will never come again, and now all we can do is salvage the often ripped and crumbly remains, buying what we can on eBay or garage sales, etc. I really would like to get more magazines from that era, if I can find a good deal on eBay. But then I have to put up with also seeing the auctions for “Japanese Teen Schoolgirl Magazine SEXY Pics” auctions. Aaarggh! But that’s another blog.

Okay, time to get back to reading. Now where was that Bobby Sherman article…

(Editor's Note: This was on my old Yahoo blog in 2007 before Yahoo discontinued their blog service.)

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

My How Times Flies

October 1984: me 30 years ago, with my son who is eating the coffee table.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Kitty Brotherly Love--For Today, at Least

My two cats, snuggled up together in their cozy bed for an afternoon nap. Just last night they were at each other's throats, fighting over who got to sit in a box lid on the floor! We heard all kinds of growling and hissing, and gray kitty Brisco lunged at his brother and sunk his jaws in his neck!