At one time, a serious swimmer could count on children’s parents to teach them a degree of pool etiqutte, namely, that when a person is swimming laps, the child needs to stay out of the swimmer’s way, but in light of my numerous recent pool experiences this is clearly not the case. Parents barely watch their kids swim anymore causing that “Swim at your own risk” sign to truly take on more meaning in today’s day and age. Whereas, just a few years ago such a sign would be laughed off or ignored by parents and kids alike.

During a stay at the Sheraton, taking a swim in a very large pool, a group of four kids, ranging, I would surmise, in ages from 8-14, started off innocently enough  goofing around on the opposite side of the pool from me. Seemingly,  in an instant, that changed. Now, not only did they want  to jump in the pool on the side that I was swimming on, but one of the kids almost swam under me. And, for me, that was the end of swimming for the day, with my hope being that the second night of my stay would yield a better swimming environment. The aforementioned example reinforces for the me the need for roped off spaces to return to public pools. Not that this action would totally solve the problem, but at least it would help a bit. So why is this not happening? Is it because fewer adults are swimming themselves, so the perceived need for such a separator is negated? Instead of doing laps, sunbathing followed by a walk in the pool and walk out of the pool approach has creeped in and become the replacement for many adults. This does not exactly make the case that a roped off area is truly needed.

And as the kicker to my Sheraton stay, night two found a wedding and a convention at the hotel, rending my plan for swimming laps night two impossible. What can I say-a good swimming situation these days is hard to find.

One of my earliest memories of 3D was watching an excerpt from Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” at Universal Studios in Florida when I was a teen. And let me tell you, it was enough to ward me off of 3D for a good long time. Fast forward to 2010 and the 3D version of “Alice and Wonderland.” Tim Burton, in all of his films, creates characters that look a bit strange and can act in sinister ways. Why exactly then do I want such creatures in “touching” distance of me? The whole idea of 3D is just too real. Even if it weren’t scary characters that were being seen, I still have no desire to be part of the action taking place on the screen in that way. I want to be entertained, not be part of the entertainment. The main argument I pose against 3D centers around where the line between entertained and entertainer falls. 3D is quite a coup for theaters and TV as the belief is that this development is going to bring younger viewers into the fold and along with them more cash. But why risk losing older audiences who are clearly invested in 2D and all it has to offer in order to gain younger audience members who may or may not be so enamored with the entertainment industry in its current form of delivering movies and shows to us mostly by TV and movie theaters? After all, aren’t the older audiences are typically the ones with more disposable income to buy the movie tickets and the big screen TVs? I heard stats on the radio recently, stating that many young people aren’t even buying televisions anymore.  From where we stand right now with 2D-3D development, it seems only logical from a logistics standpoint that 2D will have to remain in some form for the forseeable future.

3D was tried in the 1950s and 1960s to only mild acclaim, fizzing out after a short period of time. Where is the guarantee that this time the concept is going to stick? I would ask the executives of the movie/TV industries to closely examine the colossally quick move that is being made toward 3D domination. As one of your loyal 2D followers, this request deserves your consideration.

While we would all like to believe that as living and breathing people in the 21st century where PC is the name of the game and everyone’s differences are respected, I’m afraid that I must report that this is not the case. So my plea to parents everywhere is that you think carefully before you name your child as it may mean the difference between the school years going smoothly  or not so much.  Do not take a cue from celebrities who choose names that are almost always ridiculous. Their children lead lives that are not realistic to those not in the upper classes. Or at least…consult a teacher before making a final decision. You will be glad that you did.

Fast forward 20 some years. I’m out for a bike ride with my Mom in a mountain town. This is a path we’ve taken before, traveling the route is almost like clock-work. I stop at the spot that we have for the past couple of rides and wait, but my Mom doesn’t appear. So I retrace my ride a little ways. No sign of Mom. At that point, I decide to turn around and continue on the bike path, figuring that she can’t have a gotten that far. Every turn of my bike pedals brings my memory of being lost back to me, but this time instead of feeling calm and collected, I am a big ball of worry. What if something happened to her? What if she fell off her bike and is no longer on the path? What if she has been taken to the hospital? I don’t have my phone and neither does she. How could she reach me? Thoughts go through my mind like this until… I see her sitting by the lake, waiting. And when I get the spot where she is sitting, thinking that nothing is amiss, I do find myself acting a bit like Aunt Star did, asking her pointedly why she didn’t come to our regular stopping spot. And then, much like my childhood self, the tears start to well up because I’m so happy to see her, relieved that she is okay.

Secondly, a trend that has also become apparent with the dawn of the 21^st century- women and men are marrying much later in life, if at all, and, in some cases, forgoing children all together, causing a woman to be in the workforce continuously and for a longer time than if she did conceive. Therefore, a woman’s need to earn money, adequate money to live day-to-day increases dramatically, again reinforcing the need for her secondary education to be strong in order to propel her into a good college, after which will follow a good paying job.

Thirdly, the author mentions “pretty girls” who by virtue of being so will be able to marry a “duke or hedge funder” and “never have to work again.” And to that argument, I would ask the author why he would want his daughter to marry a duke or a hedge funder, especially after what the magazine that he writes for has said about either sort. Dukes are definitely not on the rise in Britain and are, in fact losing their wealth due to their serial marrying of ever younger ”pretty” women, following the dumpage of more age appropriate spouses. Those young things, because they aren’t forced to work, instead spend their spouse’s fortune like water, ending up with no house, property or spouse in the end. I wouldn’t think that the author would want his daughter to be the dumped wife or the trophy wife, the latter, who for all intents and purposes, becomes a spoiled brat as a result of such a union. As for the hedge funder option, marrying a man in this profession brings with it a degree of uncertainty depending on the markets, be them bull or bear. Also, especially if they do well, hedge funders want to capitalize on this new-found wealth, possibly getting themselves involved in schemes that create scandal and lose good people their hard-earned money. Right there, the author’s pick of professions for his daughter’s potential groom-to-be are flawed, not to mention the fact that his daughter and other girls who have parents who envision them barefoot and pregnant rather than educated and holding down a good job, might just turn out to be “Plain Janes” and then where has this brilliant argument of the author’s gone? We can’t all be blond and a size 2.

I’m not immune to the fact that Tatler is a very conservative magazine, but I just can’t believe that in 2010, I am reading an article that puts women in a pre-women’s lib light. Maybe if this article appeared in a magazine of a third world country it might be perceived as more timely, but this is a British magazine. It just goes to show how far women have not come. It’s particularly hurtful to see my gender discarded, portrayed in a manner that after all of our years of struggle to get on a “sort-of” equal footing with men, we certainly don’t deserve. So I’m calling on all middle class girls from the UK to fight for your right to attend public school. You deserve that right just as much and maybe even more than your brothers do.

As a postscript, I would like to thank Tatler for offering a counter argument to Mr. Delingpole’s article in the October 2010 issue. Many of the arguments that I offered forth were echoed by author, Mary Dudley, plus she gives some stats to back up the claims. In addition, she suggests that public school could offer more confidence to girls who are, at times, silenced by the noisier, naughtier boys. Plus the notion that those rich boys are not going to give a girl a second look who doesn’t have the education to go along with her stellar looks is brought up for consideration. Thank you, Ms. Dudley. Your article was much appreciated by this loyal female Tatler reader.

As the new Fall television season starts, I feel the need to return to the end of one specific season earlier this year. Now, I’m not a fan of “American Idol,” but it’s pretty difficult to be a media connected American and not hear about the show that has more voters than those who participate in the US Presidential Elections. So when news reached me that Simon Cowell, “Idol’s” own truth seer, was leaving the show, my low expectations of a show that has become so cliché were basically placed in the basement. Cowell, the most English of Englishmen (Stiff upper lip and all), tells it to contestants straight, from all of the “Idol” tryouts that I’ve been forced to watch, something that the other judges appear to have some aversion to. I don’t like to think of myself as someone who enjoys seeing people’s hopes crushed (and something that I didn’t like to do to students in my position as a School Counselor), but when it comes to singing, it just seems kinder to those aspirants and people who have to listen to them to let them know in no uncertain terms that you would rather hear a wolf bay at the moon than their voices raised in song. And Cowell did just that. He stated quite plainly whether a contestant was good or not. But with his departure and Jennifer Lopez and Stephen Tyler of the band Aerosmith entering as replacement judges, the newly minted panel now resembles a bunch of politicians who are trying their damnedest to avoid telling contestants that which they need to hear. Does this have larger implications for the world at large? I think so, as straight shooters in the form of politicians(I do believe that there are still some out there), CEOs, School Superintendents, anyone in a position of power and even some of their underlings, very much become things of the past with maybe a few clinging desperately to the idea that honestly is the best policy. And why is this exactly?

It’s my belief that people really don’t want to hear the truth anymore. They’d much rather go through life blissfully unaware that anything is wrong. Plus, it’s more comfortable for the speaker and listener to avoid anything that might cause the slightest conflict and possibly damage a friendship. But, here’s the thing. Conflict is a part of life. We are not perfect beings (no matter how much my father would love to tell you otherwise) formed out of cookie cutter-type molds and therefore, our  understandings of the truth  and its subsequent implications will be different. The point is that sometimes we all need to be told that we are wrong. It’s healthy and character-building as it helps to keep us in check and our heads from getting too big. This was the express purpose that Simon Cowell served for many and many more coming up the “Idol” pike will be at a severe disadvantage for not hearing the truth laid bare for them. Goodbye, Mr. Cowell. You were tough, but at least a person knew where they stood with you and I, for one, appreciate that greatly.

While the attackers do not appear to know the majority of their victims, reportedly attacks stem from the attacker being bullied in some way by someone “stronger” than them, be it physically or mentally. To then compensate for the abuses that he suffered that the hands of this person, the bullied party turns his anger and aggression on people who are weak in comparison. Since many of these attackers have killed themselves after taking out many weaker minded or bodied people before offing themselves, this action appears to be their last grab at power before cowardly ending it all. As the attacker’s victims, these young people are stripped of any future, instead enduring the cruelest form of victimization.  

Nobody likes to be bullied and, if in fact these attackers suffered from some type of untreated mental illness as has been suggested, the choices of retaliation and violence directed towards “easy targets” wouldn’t be as difficult a decision for these attackers to make.

So these attackers are initially bullied themselves. Then they search for someone to victimize and dole out the ultimate punishment. And what does the Chinese government turn around and do following such senseless killing? It turns into a bully by blocking these heartbreaking stories from being repeated and, in essence, shutting down the voices of the attackers and victims from being heard- attackers and victims whose numbers, it seems, will continue to grow and, from all accounts, represent the concerns of a society that has grown too fast for its britches (Wikipedia  “Foxconn” to find out about a high incidence of suicides, perpetuated as a result of low wages and general hopelessness felt by employees).

Yes, schools can ramp up security and put measures in place to protect would be victims as the Chinese government has proposed, but if so many Chinese people are feeling bullied, by their government or otherwise, how long will it be before the attackers pick out other easier-to-access victims? Cruelty begets cruelty and bullying begets bullying. Until the cycle is addressed and curbed, in this case in the form of professional mediators and mental health counselors being increased in numbers and trained to deal with crisis situations, this national tragedy will not easily fade from the headlines of the countries that have the freedom to report it.

In politics, like the movies, losers turning into winners abound. Abraham Lincoln, one of the greatest in Presidential history lost numerous elections but stuck it out to win the highest office in the land. In more recent memory, George W. Bush was a bit of a loser in his younger years, drinking himself to the brink and never seeming to measure up in this father’s eyes to his brother, Jeb. But he too won the Presidency, not once, but twice.

And as of May 11^th, the UK’s Liberal Democrat Party, a party that who has just 57 seats in Parliament, having lost five in the General Election on May 6th; the party whose leader, Nick Clegg was made the butt of a joke by Conservative Leader, David Cameron, who when asked what his favorite joke was replied, “Nick Clegg,” has proved to be the greatest bunch of losers turned winners to grace the House of Commons for some time.

Due to the fact that the Conservatives failed to gain the 326 seat majority needed to have a single party government, David Cameron was charged by the Queen to set up a coalition government. Nick Clegg has appeared to be at the right place at the right time as his party proved to be the most viable choice for the Conservatives to work with in order to create a shared power government. After much wrangling during which Clegg was courted by the Tories (Conservative Party) and the Labour Party, both of whom the Liberal Democrats have major political disagreements with policy-wise, Clegg himself  went from loser to winner after the first Prime Ministerial Debate to loser after the General Election results only to rise to winner status again as he along with his party in tow (how willingly they followed we will never know) made the decision to form a coalition government with the Tories to be headed up by David Cameron, Britain’s first Conservative Prime Minister in thirteen years. As the co-creator of the Liberal Democrat- Conservative Coalition, Clegg scored himself the job of Deputy Prime Minister, this post for a Lib-Dem along with four other cabinet posts for his party members, as well as a promise that some of the Lib-Dem agenda items will be supported by the Conservatives, with election reform first and foremost on the list.

While a loser to winner status on this scale may seem foreign to folks in the US, apparently 10 out 12 long-established democracies have coalition governments where many loser parties have become winners (with Australia entering the fray as of their last election). Pretty amazing that a party on the bottom can shoot straight to the top based on the politics of the time. Now the only thing left for Mr. Clegg to do is not to screw his “good thing” up or it’s back to the loser bin for him.

Case in point has occurred in the very development where my parents live between their neighbors that live across the street and next door to them. The whole awfulness started with an incident consisting of the cops visiting one of the parties and has quickly spiraled into a mess where other events have occurred. As a result of the dragging out of this feud, more and more people have gotten involved, taking sides as people do, my parents included.  And surprise, surprise- the two individuals that are at the heart of the conflict are not talking to each other except through intermediaries in the form of my Mom and Dad.

One neighbor tells a tidbit to my Dad (who I never pegged as a gossip until now) who comes home and tells my Mom, who instead of keeping it to herself so that the conflict can, if not peeter out, force the two original parties to confront one another, turns around and passes that information to the other party in question. That party then comments and my Mom comes home and tells my Dad, starting the cycle all over again. And like the game “Telephone”,  it is inevitable that some of the message is getting lost or distorted, especially by my aging parents, who I love dearly, but whose memories(although my father will not admit it when confronted) are not quite what they used to be.

What we have here is the classic high school drama dilemma. Two parties, who desperately need to sit down, face to face, with one another don’t, in part because their “friends,”  whether they are aware of it or not, are getting something (a kick, a high) out of continuing to keep the parties apart and, in essence, the drama going, causing miscommunication (a word that I used in so many instances where these situations occurred at the high school level) to run rampant, with the worst part being that so many people are brought unnecessarily into the conflict and the rift that might have started out small between the two original parties balloons into a conflict that becomes too big for the two parties to overcome alone. In a school setting, this is where, as a School Counselor, my role as an unbiased mediator between the two parties became a large portion of my work days. Every case has a slightly different variation on the theme of “she’s talking crap about me,” most often voiced as a result of a boy sending out mixed signals to both parties.

I was the investigator, if you will, trying to parse out, from what was told by the many unnecessary people who had gotten involved, what the real issues were and what two parties needed to be sitting down for a mediation to take place. Once those two things were accomplished, the next task was trying to get the two parties to sit down together in one room. It wasn’t always easy and, in the back of my mind, I always wanted to gauge the degree of tension in the room and if it would lead to a physical confrontation. If I felt that this might be the case, the two parties wouldn’t meet. I’ll give the students credit, in the cases that I was involved with, the students knew, almost instinctively if they could handle being in the room with the other party or not. Once the two parties were in one room, it was a matter of both stating their side of the story, one at a time, and seeing where the areas of miscommunication laid.  After some discussion, it would come time to reach an agreement as to how to end the conflict. After asking the parties for their input, each would state what they wanted to have happen and the other person was asked if they could agree to such a stipulation. In most cases, both parties agreed and were subsequently sent on their way. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that what seemed like the most successful mediations didn’t always work out that way. But, at least these students were willing to give it a try. I wonder if my parents’ neighbors, who are older and much more set in their ways, would even be willing to try such an intervention.

By no means am I intimating that I have never been involved in a bit of backbiting. As a teen, I was not immune, although I don’t remember seeing my parents engage in such behavior when I was of a young, impressionable age. After years of training and seeing it firsthand in the world, I am much more sensitive to the devastating effects that gossiping and rumors can have on those involved and try my utmost to avoid involvement in such foolishness. After all, such behavior leads to nothing more than hurt feelings and a rise in tensions. And where do you think that the next generation of students are learning such antisocial (or maybe more aptly named hyper-social depending on how one chooses to look at the situation) behavior from- you guessed it- their parents, so how precisely is this terrible behavior ever supposed to end?

By parents setting an example is the answer to the abovementioned question, which is exactly what my parents’ neighbors should be doing. After all, one of the parties has small children and what type of example is this setting for them? If they can’t confront each other to work out their problem, then they should seek out a moderator who can, calmly, as an unbiased observer, help them down the path to reconciliation. I think that the neighborhood would thank them for it. I would even graciously volunteer my services. For once, I would like to see rational behavior with 1 and pettiness with 0. For now, I’ll keep hoping.