She's Got Leg(ging)s, She Knows How to Use Them

Some women and numerous fashionistas seem to have declared war on leggings worn as pants.

Fashion icon Tim Gunn absolutely hates leggings and yoga pants.

There’s a YouTube video that has gone viral of Jamie Higdon Randolph (over) stressing that leggings are not pants and should not be worn as such.

The funniest anti-leggings screed though is the Australian group “Skit Box”  song about “Active Wear” which is basically a sporty-style of leggings.

On the other hand, we single males love leggings (I mention single because married men aren’t allowed to like them without the wife’s permission). They are skin-tight, make us imagine the woman as naked although clearly clothed, and even though leggings help hide some sins, for the most part they allow us guys to see what the legs are shaped like.  As a “leg man” I think they’re hot.

Unfortunately, as discussed previously, women don't dress for men. They dress for other women. So although there might be a tendency for some women to say that they are doing it to get a man’s attention, that's not the reality.

So why do women risk the social media condemnations and askance stares of other women to wear leggings?  Apparently, they have multiple reasons:

Many will say they wear them for comfort.

Some declare they do it because the leggings give them a feeling of empowerment and physicality because they are so often used for exercise and hearty activities.

 

 

They don’t want to mess up their “good” clothes when doing chores or errands.

A few really brave souls will admit they are doing it because they are too lazy to try to pick out something else (the male equivalent to wearing sweat pants).

As stated earlier, we single guys love leggings. So as far as this yearly battle (it surfaces every time fall rolls around) on whether women should wear leggings as pants, let me just conclude by saying “Please, keep it up.”

(Some angry feminists who heard that I was going to blog about leggings said I was only doing it so I could post more pictures of women in tight clothing and not to make social commentary. Um, maybe.)

Whew, aren't you glad this wasn't another one of those ornery side-steps? Back in the groove. (James Thurber would have liked leggings too).

The Oregon Mass Shooting: Another Thurber Brigade Sidestep

Did you know that the NRA was founded by a handful of Northern Civil War veterans who wanted to make sure their fellow Yankees could shoot as well as their Southern counterparts?

Believe it.  In fact, their stated purpose was “Firearms Safety Education, Marksmanship Training, Shooting for Recreation.” 

I bring this up because every time a madman kills a large number of people in the United States, the gun nuts—excuse me—enthusiasts, rush to the airwaves to stress how it’s every citizen’s 2^nd Amendment right to carry a gun. 

But it’s not.

The 2nd Amendment got added to our Bill of Rights because many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and they feared that the Federal Government would disarm the state militias.  Those state militias were an important tool used by slavers to quell slave rebellions and hunt down runaway slaves. If you took away the guns of the militia, well, as Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained  asks, "Why don't the slaves just rise up and kill the whites?"

Yeah, the slavers feared that.

Individual gun ownership was not really a concern of the founders. I think this is largely because they believed the country was a wild frontier and so it went without saying that people would own guns. Of course, in colonial days running around with guns (open carry) was frowned upon by just about everyone unless absolutely necessary, but that’s a different story.

The NRA changed its tune in the 1970s and grasped the 2^nd Amendment as its own useful tool for controlling populations.  Populations of people who wanted to have more strict control on guns. 

It hasn’t really worked.  When I say that, I mean it hasn’t changed peoples’ minds. Most people still want more regulations of firearms. Things like background checks, etc.

The NRA has been very good at impressing congress though. Although the regular populaton supports more gun regulations and there is always a large public outcry after the latest mass killing event, congress refuses to do anything.

To further pound home the reason why congress SHOULD do something, let’s compare the number of deaths caused by firearms versus congress’ big PR fear target—terrorism:

So just in case congress and the president decide to really do something about gun violence, here’s my 2¢ or actually, two ideas that would help.

• Universal background checks.  Admittedly, this is a small step and would only reduce gun deaths a bit, but we have to start someplace. It would need to be a bit more thorough then the current method, and get all the states to buy in by reporting all information that would be useful. Information such as time spent in a mental institution. Right now, that is barely reported and seldom reported if it was voluntary.

• Require liability insurance for all guns. That’s right, just like those other killer machines, cars, we need to require gun owners to be willing to pay to protect us from wrongful use of their weapon. 

This would be a big boon for the insurance companies of course, but the reason this would work is because sooner or later those same companies would have to start paying out massive amounts of money for violent acts. And they’d hate that.

So once insurance companies begin to get really angry about having to pay out all that money, it means they’d also begin to put the hammer down on congress and get them to do even more gun control regulation. Once insurance companies begin lobbying as extensively for gun control as the NRA currently does to stop it, well, I think we might get something done.

So there are solutions out there for America’s penchant to have a mass shooting just about every two weeks. We just need to get Big Money behind the initiatives to actually have those solutions happen.

This picture has nothing to do with the issue of this blog. It's just that I've been to Oregon quite a few times and believe it's a beautiful state.  So although there is no way to forget that horrible incident in Roseburg, OR, I thought I'd leave you a more picturesque image of the state (that's Mt. Hood).

**The Thurber Brigade apologizes for yet again veering off the road of the War Between Men and Women and assures everyone that it will return to the straight and narrow soon. Maybe. 

James Thurber!

Phoned Out

In ancient times, maybe, oh, 20 years ago, I remember an ad by some company selling this newfangled contraption called a cell phone. A rather large phone receiver device you could carry with you (believe it or not, the first one was developed in 1973).  

In the ad, a woman carrying groceries goes nuts when she hears the phone ring in her house a short distance away. Of course she drops her groceries as she attempts, unsuccessfully, to vault the bushes by her front porch. Her neighbor has a cell phone and easily answers her call while carrying her grocery bags.

In the almost ancient times, oh, 10 years ago, the stereotype of a cell phone user was a teenage girl who basically had the phone to her ear 24/7. Oblivious to all around her she would wander down the street talking to her bff, who also had her phone surgically attached to her ear, about what Jill wore to school that day, what Tony said to Eve before math class, or some other vitally important topic.

Nowadays the stereotype of the cell phone user is just about everyone. Same scenario of course. They are oblivious to their surroundings, have the phone to ear constantly, talking/texting about the daily drivel.  

Well, when I say everyone, I am excluding us old guys.

We old farts hear the cell phone ring and let it go to voicemail. We might return the call after the football game is over. There is a good chance that if a friend calls from down the block we'll just walk down and see him rather than call.

If we wonder if the local store has that new screwdriver we want we'll most likely go there and look around rather than call and ask. We laugh when the phone addicts say they need to have the phone with them 24/7 in case they get an emergency call from their ailing Mother. We know that 99.99% of the calls are about what cheese to buy for a sandwich or whether we like the black or red evening dress the wife wants to buy.

I admit I broke down and bought a smart phone a half year ago (it was a cheap $70 one). Previously I just had an "ancient" flip phone that I used occasionally. I got rid of my landline a long time ago, but still would leave the phone in the other room and eventually answer any voicemail. The smart phone hasn't changed me either. I still don't know how to use most of the apps (and don't use them).

However, I am addicted to my computer and iPad. In fact, I wrote most of this blog on my iPad at Einstein Bros. Bagels and the Blackstar Coop (my favorite brewpub). If I need to find where some store is located I will most likely look on my computer at Google Maps. If I wonder what a word means I am more likely to flip open my iPad rather than go get the dictionary.

Weird right? After all, many smart phones are pretty much mini computers.

I bring up my feelings about phones because I keep running into people who feel the same way—but about eBooks.

Just the other day I noticed a friend who had posted a comment on Facebook (I was using my computer, not phone) stating she absolutely hated eBooks with a passion.  Swore she would only read paper versions. She, of course, is one of those who uses her cell phone for everything from calendar notices to, well, Facebook comments.

I love eBooks.  I have about 50 books on my iPad. You would need a suitcase to carry around that many paper versions. If I'm alone at a dark bar, I might whip out an eBook to while away the time as I sip my favorite IPA. Can't do that with a paperback unless you also use your cell phone as a light. If the font is too small I can enlarge it at will. With a paper version you'd have to get your magnifying glass out. If I don't recognize a word, I just highlight it and get the built-in dictionary to look it up for me. With paper you have to set the book down and go to the other room for your paper dictionary.

Oddly, I got into eBooks because of a TV show about paper.

For the longest time I only read paper books. Then one night I watched an episode of “The Office.”  Mike was droning on about how great paper was, when he mentioned how you could read an eBook on a small device. Darryl (Craig Robinson) overheard him and the next scene we discover he’s hiding in a storage room and is reading a book on an e-reader. I was intrigued.

So I got a free e-reader for my computer and downloaded a free copy of “The Deerslayer.” I think I had read the CliffsNotes version during junior high, and have always felt an obligation to eventually read the whole thing. So I tried the eBook. I was hooked.

Admittedly, there are a lot of eBooks that are just as expensive as paper ones, but for the most part, you can find a book cheaper if it’s electronic. I’m sure students all over the globe wish that all of their text books were eBooks. Paper ones often cost close to $100 (typically those evil chemistry ones), so an eBook would likely be a little less. Plus, they’d love to be able to whip it out on their cell phones and read today’s chapter while riding the bus to class rather than fumbling with that gigantic paper version.

Plus, could you imagine someone reading a paper textbook while in line for those Miley Cyrus tix? No, if not texting their friends they’d be reading an eBook I'm sure.

Okay, I admit I’m a little biased because I have three eBooks I’ve written that are for sale. You can see them listed on the side of this blog. Hey, they’re very inexpensive and a great read, so give one a try.  Oh, and by the way, I published them AFTER I began reading eBooks. I didn't become a fan of eBooks because of them. Did I mention that they are all great? Sorry.

So when those phone-addicted friends of mine chide me and roll their eyes when I tell them about my aversion to phones, I just ask them if they read eBooks. If not, I just roll my eyes and ask if they still use a rotary phone.

If they do read eBooks though, well, I usually just say I’ll get better with phones after I read the eBook version of the phone manual.

(James Thurber would have loved that his writing could be made into a modern reading version: http://tinyurl.com/npguugt)

(some images courtesy of http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/)

Seriously (don’t take me seriously)

Years ago a coworker told me that when she first encountered me at the hiring interview, she had the impression I was a mean, tough guy and would be against hiring her. I had actually told the hiring committee that I thought she would be a great fit for the office. She had taken me too seriously largely because, well, I guess I look very serious.

I have had a Van Dyke for about 20 years (long before it became fashionable, I might brag) and with fairly broad shoulders and short hair I guess I can see why people might think this. I do smile a lot, but because of that Van Dyke I don't think people can see it. It's probably more of a Mona Lisa half-smile.

However serious I may appear though, I am rarely serious.

It all began back at high school. I remember talking to my German teacher, Mrs. Mason, about my plans to go to college to become a Phys Ed teacher. I want to point out here that Mrs. Mason was a WWII concentration camp survivor. Although I knew she had lived in Germany and was Jewish, I didn't understand the number tattooed on her arm until I got to college. Yes, I probably was a little more naive in HS. Maybe I thought she had escaped before the war, I'm not sure why I didn't make the connection. I mention this about Mrs. Mason not just because she was my favorite teacher, but as a survivor she deserves to be talked about.

(Hilde Mason)

Anyway, Mrs. Mason expressed surprise about my career path. She thought I was more of the chess club type, not the type of guy who likes to work up a sweat or bang bodies on a playing field. Okay, maybe because I was such a quiet kid, she also thought I was the serious type too.

(Jay the serious soccer coach)

Oddly, I liked that she misread me. She stereotyped me based on certain behaviors and maybe looks (no Van Dyke back then). 

As I have blogged before people often stereotype others based on a lot of different factors. As time went by, I found myself purposely trying to get folks to misread me. It became a rather perverse habit to see different people's reaction.

My beard is a good example. I have almost always had at least a mustache, partly because I liked Magnum PI, but also as a GI it was the only facial hair allowed—but was frowned upon. So of course I had to push those military boundaries. Through the years I seldom had a beard though. Around November I would grow one and then slowly shave it off after the New Year. In other words, I would first just trim it back, then maybe the next week shave it down to a Van Dyke, then a Fu Manchu, then just back to the 'Stache. On one of those occasions that my facial hair was down to the Van Dyke, this female coworker told me I looked evil. That was when it became one of my permanent accouterments.  

(The Army 'Stache)

So I have been stereotyped over the years as gay because I was single, skinny (back then) and had a mustache;  a "player" because people would often see me with a different woman every time they'd encounter me (it was really because they didn't see me that often and I never seemed to have very long relationships); a partier because I used to hit the Austin nightlife five to six nights a week; or a right-wing fascist due to my previous military experience (I still don't get this last one, because if you look at those who served it seems more common for progressives to be in the military. I've always postulated that we enlisted were more likely to be Progs and officers were more likely NeoCons. Since people see officers talk more than enlisted on the news—even though there are more enlisted—well, everyone gets the wrong impression. But that is just a theory).

Besides my appearance and demeanor generating these false images of me, I also have a habit (some will say bad habit) of trying to get a reaction from people. It's a writer's responsibility to do this, of course, but I have it ingrained in my makeup to do this naturally.  So I will often take the opposite side of an argument just to see what the other person will say or do. Devil's advocate as they say.

The thing is that there really isn't a lot that I take so serious that I'd be willing to take it to the mat. And often people won't bother to ask if I am serious, even though they may know me. They'll just take me at face value. So when I wrote my notorious blog about women drivers, no one bothered to ask me if I was serious. In truth, I believe that everyone is a much worse driver than me (I am great), it's not just women. Yeah, I should probably take the bus more often, because I am always telling all those other drivers out there how rotten they are (and often while using a funny voice; wish they could hear it).

Likewise, in my dating/hunting tips blog a lot of females took it as something a predator might find useful rather than a snide commentary about how we Americans go about looking for dates. The main reason I had written the thing was really because I had overheard a woman telling her friend how disgusted she felt about a guy who dated a younger woman (it wasn't me). My thought on this is that first off it's none of her business who other people are attracted to, and second, since it is always the male who must make first contact, it is up to the male WHO that contact will be, not some uptight non-participant (I had asked her once before if she had ever gone up to a male she didn't know and strike up a conversation. Of course, she hadn't). So that blog wasn't meant to be taken serious, it was more of me just making a snide remark.

Yes, I specialize in sarcasm.

Although a lot of what I write is satire/humor, I do often write serious stuff. In the 90s I wrote about police brutality (since it is a huge topic these days, I like to think I was on the leading edge). Plus, I have written several books that include mystery/detective (Tax Break) and action/adventure (Wings of Honor). Okay, my last book was humor/satire (and I think it was obvious that it is not serious) yet people see the title and seem to run.

Even though I do write some serious stuff, I seriously don't think you should always take me so serious. So the next time you read one of these blogs on The Thurber Brigade and it ruffles your feathers, you might first just take a deep breath and relax, but then you might write a snarky comment to me in response.

If nothing else, you should write/shout "are you f.....g SERIOUS!"

(I wonder if James Thurber was always taken seriously?)

The Hiker

Colorado has some beautiful scenery, but what most people don't realize is that half the state looks more like Kansas than those stunning pictures we see in travel magazines. I know this well because of my family's vacations when I was a child.

My Dad always loved to travel. I think this wanderlust came from growing up on a small Kansas farm during the depression. About the only adventures his family might undertake would be a shopping trip to a nearby small town.

So as an adult, not only did he become a Navy pilot during WWII, he did a stint as a pilot after the war, then even after getting a family (and degree in engineering) would move from state to state after a number of years. Oh, not every few years but often enough that it was hard to establish strong roots.

Unfortunately, his type of travel for vacations meant putting the family in a car and driving somewhere. Oh, you would see things, but it was from the car. And the majority of the time our vacations were to drive to Colorado. This meant driving the expanse of Kansas (we lived in Topeka) to reach the mountains.

As you are drive through western Kansas you eventually enter Colorado. You have no idea you are in that state except that there is a big green sign you pass saying "Welcome to Colorado" (nowadays they seem to be made of wood). In other words, Colorado looks just like Kansas.

Of course, after about 30 minutes you would begin to see the tops of the distant mountains. After so many miles of flat plains it was really exhilarating to see those peaks, so the rest of the drive, which was pretty long and still in flat country, didn't seem that bad.

 
Once in the mountains the real adventure began. Oh, not because we did anything special, but because my Dad would always drive on these perilous winding roads—with thousand foot drops off the edge, a small two-foot rock wall the only barrier—and simultaneously stare over the edge of those cliffs.

 
In other words, we were never sure when we would be plunging over those cliffs to our spectacular deaths as he missed that next bend.  He never did though. Even though it freaked his passengers out his roaming eyes never resulted in an accident.

Oh, sure, there were turnoffs he could have taken to stop and look, but he wanted to keep driving. So the vacation mainly consisted of driving and looking out the window at those majestic mountains as they whizzed by.

However, there was always a little voice coming from the back seat begging to be allowed to get out and explore those mountains. You see, I am completely different than my Dad. I am a hiker. My idea of seeing something is getting out of said car and walking around.

I still vividly remember a time we were driving by some snow (it might have been a glacier) and convincing my brother into whining along with me to be allowed to go "see" that blazing white stuff. Dad relented and we two little boys ran up to the snow to frolic and throw snowballs. It was summer after all, so a snowball fight in July was pretty exciting.

To this day I still love to travel, but after 50 miles I am ready to get out of the car and start hiking. This can make getting somewhere a real challenge because every time I see a turnoff near some great scenery I feel this need to pull over and go see whatever is there. One trip along the Oregon/Washington coast took an inordinate amount of time because just about every 10 miles you would see something breath-taking that required exploration.

So when I plan a vacation these days, the question I always ask myself is "what kind of hiking can I get in?"

Last year, I hiked around Mt. Rainier

The previous year were The Grand Tetons

The year before: Olympic National Park

Even this year, when I decided to just take a short trip and stay in Portland, Oregon (just to escape the Texas summer heat) it was with the idea that I would take at least one day to hike around The Columbia River Gorge plus go often to Washington Park.

All this being said, my vacations have been solo adventures because usually my girlfriends knew of my habit of walking a lot. They knew that even a short trip to a nearby store could result in a stop by a hike-and-bike trail we "accidentally" passed on the way.

I am sure there are females who also have this wandering habit. After all, I have passed a number on the trails. But for now it seems I’ll be hiking along the various paths I come across by my lonesome.

I don’t mind.

(Of course I had to have a James Thurber cartoon about the wild too!)