Posts Tagged ‘1963’

New Year – 2013

January 1, 2013

Happy New Year - Nevada State Journal -Reno NV - 01 JAN 1913

We ain’t got nothin’ but we’ll give you all half of that!

Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada) Jan 1, 1913

Happy New Year - Newark Advocate OH 01 Jan 1913

NOW WRITE IT!

Newark Advocate (Newark, Ohio) Jan 1, 1913

Happy New Year - Albuquerque Tribune NM 01 Jan 1963

It’s All Yours

Albuquerque Tribune (Albuquerque, New Mexico) Jan 1, 1963

Advertisements

Rain, Rain, Go Away!

December 13, 2012

Rain - San Antonio Express TX - 11 Dec 1963

San Antonio Express (San Antonio, Texas) Dec 11, 1963

Rain  - The Chronicle Telegram - Elyria OH 18 Nov 1931

The Chronicle Telegram (Elyria, Ohio) Nov 18, 1931

Rain - Chile - Troy Record NY 17 Dec 1962

Troy Record (Troy, New York) Dec 17, 1962

Rain - Golf - The Chronicle Telegram - Elyria OH 5 Dec 1928

The Chronicle Telegram (Elyria, Ohio) Dec 5, 1928

Rain - South Korea - Lima News OH 18 Sep 1950

Lima News (Lima, Ohio) Sep 15, 1950

A Chiller

May 30, 2012

Northwest Arkansas Times (Fayetteville, Arkansas) Oct 1, 1963

Eat Your Peas

February 22, 2012

Eat Your Peas

Abilene Morning News (Abilene, Texas) Jun 11, 1935

HELPFUL HINTS

Eat your peas with honey,
I have done it all my life;
They do taste kind of funny,
But it keeps them on the knife.

Daily News (Huntingdon, Pennsylvania) Aug 19, 1948

Eat Your Peas

Daily Review (Hayward, California) Aug 30, 1955

Eat Your Peas

Oneota Star (Oneota, New York) Sep 20, 1963

Eat Your Peas

Post Crescent (Appleton, Wisconsin) Jul 18, 1967

*****

Eat Your Peas

Danville Register (Danville, Virginia) Feb 20, 1969

*****

Eat Your Peas

Anderson Herald (Anderson, Indiana) Dec 20, 1969

*****

 

The Hayakawa column
Law, economics and sin
By S.I. Hayakawa

Aldous Huxley once wrote: “The consistency of human behavior … is due to the fact that men have formulated their desires, and subsequently rationalized them, in terms of words … If it were not for the descriptive and justificatory words with which we bind our days together, we should live like the animals in a series of discreet and separate spurts of impulse.”

Thus, indeed, do we bind our days together. Whether you describe yourself as “machinist,” “policeman,” or “teacher,” you don’t always feel like being a machinist or policeman or teacher. There are days when you would far rather be doing something else. But we continue with our jobs, held there by the words which define our role in life.

Law is the mighty collective effort made by human beings to organize that degree of orderly and uniform behavior that makes society possible.

Law and science are very different from each other. What science predicts (“ice will melt at temperatures above 32 degrees Fahrenheit”) comes true independent of our wishes. What law predicts (“Persons convicted of murder will be hanged.”) comes true only if we are determined to do what we said we would do. At the basis of law is our determination to observe conjunction.

Language of the law is of necessity, therefore, in part a kind of sermonizing. In addition to prescribing certain forms of behavior, it must create in us the will and the desire to follow the prescription. This fact makes the judge, to a large degree, a preacher. The trial is a kind of morality play.

The art of preaching has its own pitfalls. Sermons are almost always faded at a higher level of generalization and with a greater dogmatism than the immediate situation calls for. The reasons for this are largely rhetorical: to get attention and to impress the sermon firmly in the hearer’s mind.

To reduce this matter to a simple example, let us suppose that the purpose of a given directive is to get Junior to eat his peas. If the simple demand, “Junior, eat your peas,” does not work, one proceeds immediately to a sermon on the subject: “Vegetables are good for you,” and “All growing boys should eat plenty of vegetables.”

In other words, the demand that Junior eat his peas is asserted to be not merely a passing whim, but the particularization of a general nutritive principle.

If Junior still leaves his peas untouched, one appeals to history: “You grandfather was a vegetarian and he lived to the age of 99,” and, “Sailors in the old sailing ships used to die of scurvy because they didn’t get enough fresh vegetables.” From here on it is but a short jump to say that God intended that peas be eaten and father be obeyed.

But the great principles we enunciate on one day prove to be extremely inconvenient on another day, as inevitably they must, since they state it so much more than was necessary to begin with.

So, as Father himself leaves untouched his carrots — and raisin salad a few days later, he can say, if challenged: “what I was arguing for all along is not vegetables as such, but a balanced diet — as it is possible to achieve balance without this particular salad. A man can’t keep going on rabbit food. Do you know that millions in Asia are suffering from protein deficiency because they get nothing but vegetables to eat?”

Thus do fathers keep all bases covered and maintain fiction with infallible wisdom. And if the layman regards the law with a mixture of exaggerated respect and exaggerated distrust, is it not because lawyers and judges perform on a large scale as the rest of us do daily?

I write these words as President Ford’s economic summit conference draws to a close. One gets the impression, hearing the summaries of the proceedings, that economics, like law, is not so much a science as it is a branch of homiletic, or the art of preaching.

One speech after another tells us how to save ourselves from inflation, which has come upon us as punishment for our economic sins.

Salvation lies, we are told, in rigid controls over prices and wages — or no controls at all; in relaxing the federal regulation of business; in giving the consumer greater protection; in lower taxes for the poor; in high taxes for everybody; in a balanced budget; in a more abundant flow of money; in eliminating (or increasing) depletion allowances and subsidies.

There are as many economic doctrines as there are Protestant sects, which goes to show that  while economics as a science is not doing well, economics as a religion is doing just fine.

Idaho Free Press (Nampa, Idaho) Oct 5, 1974

Having kids means having to say all the things you swore you’d never say
[excerpt]

I also know why parents don’t make great conversationalists. They only know a few familiar words and phrases: Don’t slam the door. Turn off the lights. Don’t interrupt. Quit running around the house. Close the refrigerator door. Pick up your room. Did you flush the toilet? Eat your peas. Think of the starving people in …

The Mountain Democrat (Placerville, California) Apr 20, 1987

Eat Your Peas

The Gettysburg Times (Gettysburg, Pennsylvania) May 31, 1989

Offer Choices.
[excerpt]

Children need lots of experience in making their own decisions, and living with the consequences. “Would you like to eat your peas now?” does not encourage a “yes.” A much better technique is, “Would you rather have peas first or carrots first?” Early on, before babies can talk, find ways to offer good choices. As children grow, increase the number and complexity of their options. when toddlers (or grown-ups) feel they have some control over what happens to them, they are much more likely to be kind and friendly.

The Gettysburg Times (Gettsyburg, Pennsylvania) Sep 5, 1996

Image from ARRA News Service

Let’s Move!

Now,  Eat Your Peas!