The decline of marriage is one reason people of all ages are now more likely to live alone. But there have been other changes as well. As American society gets richer, more people can afford (have the money) to buy their “independence” and live by themselves. This is especially true of older Americans. Thanks to Social Security (money from the government for retirement) and individual savings, only 20% of older Americans now live with one of their children, compared to 70% in 1900. People live alone not because they don’t have a choice, but rather, in most cases, because they do.

In case you think this is another case of extreme (too much) American individualism (the idea that each person should be independent and not relay on another), think again: most European countries have far more people living alone than the U.S. does.  Nearly half of all Swedes (people from Sweden), 40% of Norwegians (from Norway), and 39% of Germans (from Germany) live alone. In fact, the Netherlands, Great Britain, France, Ukraine, Japan, Poland, Italy, and Canada all have more “home aloners” than the U.S. And Russia, Spain, Ireland, and South Korea are only a few percentage points behind the U.S.

The countries where people are still living with family members are often poorer on average, but many have economies that are growing fast: India (3%), China (7%), Brazil (10%). In comparison, many countries in Europe and certain parts of Asia now have shrinking (growing smaller) populations, where the average person is richer but older than in other places. The United States is somewhere in the middle, with growth in the population coming largely from immigration. The future of the world’s population is not Turin, Tokyo, or Toledo, but Shanghai, Sao Paolo, and Surat.*

The rise (increase in popularity) of the Internet has in some ways made being physically alone less lonely, in that you can “connect” with others online. But have we lost something in our quest (desire; search) to be alone?

~Jeff

Photo credit: Gaurava Path, Wikipedia CC

*Surat is a city in India with a population of 2.8 million. I had never heard of it before writing this post, even though it has more people than any city in the U.S. except New York and Los Angeles.

Ever since the Super Bowl started being televised (shown on television) 42 years ago, there has been counterprogramming. Counterprogramming is the showing of another type of television show on a different channel to attract viewers who may not want to watch a major television event like the Super Bowl, or to draw away (take away) viewers from that event. Since 2005, one piece of counterprogramming that has attracted a surprising number of viewers is the Puppy Bowl.

The Puppy Bowl is a TV show shown on a cable channel (television channel you can get by paying for a special service) called Animal Planet, which specializes in shows about, well, animals.  The Puppy Bowl mimics (imitates; tries to be like, for entertainment) the Super Bowl, but instead of men playing football, the game is played by puppies (young dogs).  All of the puppies that play in the Puppy Bowl are from animal shelters, places for animals without homes. Throughout the show, viewers are given information about how to adopt (take home and make a part of their family) a dog from a local shelter.

The first Puppy Bowl was in 2005 and last year’s Puppy Bowl drew (attracted) a total of about 9 million viewers.  To be honest, I had never heard of the Puppy Bowl until recently, and after watching a clip (short video) of last year’s Puppy Bowl, I’m not sure I’ll tune in this year. But, if like me, you’re not a football fan and are looking for something to watch this Sunday, this is an alternative (another option).  There’s no denying (saying it isn’t true) that these are some very adorable (cute) puppies.  Me?  I think I’ll just curl up with (get comfortable with) a good book.

~ Lucy

Photo Credit:  GoldenRetrieverPuppyDaisyParker from Wikipedia

A story in the Wall Street Journal reported that mothers apparently have some small control over when they will deliver (have; give birth to) their babies. Researchers examined births in the U.S. from 1996 to 2006 during the two weeks around Halloween (October 31st) and St. Valentine’s Day (February 14th). You would expect that the number of spontaneous or natural births to be about (approximately) the same each day. (They excluded (didn’t include) caesarians (where the doctors surgically remove the baby from the woman) and induced births (where drugs are given to cause the woman to give birth).)

They found that the number of births on St. Valentine’s Day rose (increased) 3.6% over (compared to) the surrounding days, and fell (decreased) 5.3% on Halloween. The researchers concluded that, within a limited time frame (a limited amount of time), women can “expedite or delay” (speed up or slow down) childbirth (giving birth to a baby).

I was born on September 24th, 1963, and I don’t know if my mother cared (thought it important) which day I was born on. But she might have influenced (changed) the time I was born. She told me that when she and my father arrived at the hospital in the afternoon of the 24th, she was examined by her doctor (the same doctor who had delivered (helped in the birth of) my 10 brothers and sisters). The doctor told her that she still had some time before I was ready to come out, so he was going to go watch the Minnesota Twins baseball game on TV.  When the game was over, he’d come back and deliver the baby.

Well, the Twins lost that day 5 to 1 to the Cleveland Indians, but the doctor did come back, and I was born at around 6:30 in the evening. The good news is that the Los Angeles Dodgers won that day, and a few weeks later won the World Series against the New York Yankees. Maybe that’s why I moved to Los Angeles instead of staying in Minnesota.

~Jeff

Photo credit: Happiness, Wikipedia CC

Telegraph Hill, which is popular with many tourists, is an important part of San Francisco’s history. It gets its name from a signal (something used to send messages), located at the top of the Hill, that was used to identify ships arriving in San Francisco harbor (place near the city where ships stop). In 1850, the signal alerted (sent a message to) San Franciscans that California had become the 31^st state in the U.S.

Coit Tower was built on Telegraph Hill as a gift from wealthy socialite (well-known rich woman) Lillie Hitchcock Coit. She was a little eccentric (unusual, odd) – for example, she loved to chase fires (go where fires are burning) – but she wanted to add “to the beauty of the city which [she] had always loved.” The Tower was designed in the art deco style – with strong, simple shapes and colors – that was popular in the 1920s and 30s. It was dedicated (officially opened) in 1933.

Many people have seen the Tower from the outside; fewer, however, know about the art treasure inside. The interior walls are covered with fresco murals created by 27 different artists and their assistants. Frescos are works of art created by painting directly on the surface of a wall or ceiling, often when the surface is still wet, so that the painting becomes a permanent part of the wall or ceiling. Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper is one of the most famous examples of fresco.

A mural is any work of art painted on a wall or ceiling, often as a part of the design of the building. According to a recent report, more than 2500 murals were painted in post offices, schools, and other public buildings in the U.S. in the 1920s. The murals in Coit Tower tell a story of life in California in the early part of the 20^th century. They include scenes of “the grim (serious) reality (truth) of city life, the pastoral (peaceful) beauty of California’s agriculture (farm life), and the worlds of food and leisure (relaxing activity).” Famous Mexican muralist (someone who paints murals) Diego Rivera influenced many of the artists who painted the Coit murals.

Many of the public murals in the U.S., including those in the Coit Tower, are in danger today. The U.S. Post Office, for example, is down-sizing (becoming smaller) and closing many of their buildings, including some with murals. The Coit murals, however, face a different peril (serous and immediate danger) – the San Francisco fog.

One of the problems with frescos is that anything in the environment that damages the wall or ceiling they’re painted on also damages the paintings. This kind of deterioration (becoming worse) seriously damaged Da Vinci’s Last Supper and required a major effort by art conservators (someone who repairs art) to rescue (save) the painting.

In the Coit Tower, moisture (small amounts of water) from the almost daily San Francisco fog penetrates (goes into) the walls. As it evaporates (dries), it moves through the wall to the painting on the face of the wall and leaves tiny white salt crystals (pieces of salt) that slowly destroy the paintings. This process causes the wall and the paintings that cover it to slowly crumble, or fall apart.

People in San Francisco have begun to raise money to try to preserve (save and protect) the tower.

If you’d like to learn more about the Coit Tower  murals and what’s being done to save them, you can read and listen to this story from the PBS Newshour.

*Peril = serious and immediate danger

~ Warren Ediger – English tutor and coach and creator of Successful English, where you can find clear explanations and practical suggestion for better English.

Photo by Thomas Hawk used under Creative Commons license.

There are no official (legal) duties of an ex-president.  They can do pretty much (almost) anything they want to do.  Some write memoirs or autobiographies – stories of their own lives.  Most work on their presidential library – a place where their documents are kept and where scholars (researchers) can go to study their time as president.  Oftentimes, they are sent by the current president on some diplomatic mission (activity involving talking to or working with another government) or to help with some particular cause.  Some ex-presidents, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, start charitable organizations to help people in need (who need help).

In the past, a few ex-presidents have gone into (become a member of) another branch (part) of government.  After leaving the presidency in 1829, John Quincy Adams became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives (he had also been a U.S. Senator before being elected president). President William Taft (1909-1913) was later (1921 – 1930) the Chief Justice of the United States, head (leader) of the United State Supreme Court.

Even if President Obama wins the election this fall, he will still be a relatively young man when he finishes his job as president – only 55 years old in 2016.   It is possible that he could take another job in government.  It is more likely, however, that he will follow the path (do the same as) other recent ex-presidents and work in some charitable organization, write books, and look back on (remember) his days (time) as the occupant of (person living in) 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (the White House’s street address).

What happens to ex-leaders of your country? Do they do what our ex-presidents do?

~Jeff

Photo credit: White House, Wikipedia CC

In a recent study, scientists measured the height (how tall someone is) of 100 male and female college students.  Then they gave them a test that (the researchers said) measured (indicated; showed) how much ability they had to be a leader (boss; manager). Finally, they asked students to role-play (pretend) that they were either managers or employees.

The students were assigned (put into a group) randomly (by chance) to play either a manager or an employee.  They were told that they were put into the manager or employee group based on (because of) their score on the leadership test, but in fact, their assignment wasn’t related to that score at all.

After they were assigned to a group, the students were then asked to give their own height.  There was no actual (real) difference in height between the two groups.  The employees gave their correct height, but the managers said that they were taller than they actually were!

Our perception (the way we see something) of ourselves psychologically is, according to the researchers, related to how we view ourselves physically.  Does this mean that if I imagine myself as being 20 years younger, I will be able to grow my hair back?

~Jeff

Photo Credit: Robert Wadlow, 1918; Wikipedia PD

Several things set this performance apart (make it unique or unusual). Rhapsody in Blue is the first piece of concert music to blend (mix) classical music and jazz (If you want to know more about jazz and blues, read this blog post that I wrote several months ago). So I suppose it is fitting (appropriate) to have the piano part of Rhapsody played by classical and jazz pianists together, especially since it is usually played by only one pianist.

What makes this performance even more interesting to me is that the story of jazz in China did not begin until 1981, almost exactly one year before Lang Lang was born.  Before then, jazz, which began in America, was virtually (almost) unknown in China.

American jazz was introduced to the Chinese by two other African American jazz musicians, Willie Ruff and Dwike Mitchell, when they were invited to Shanghai to spend (use time to do something) several days with the teachers and students of the Shanghai Conservatory (school for studying music and other arts) of Music. William Zinsser, who also traveled to Shanghai, tells their story in his book Mitchell and Ruff: An American Profile (an article or book that describes someone) in Jazz.

Zinsser writes that Ruff and Mitchell explained jazz and the blues to their Chinese audience and performed (play their instruments) examples of what they are talking about.

The Chinese musicians in Shanghai had never experienced anything like this. Jazz is not written or planned. It is like an unplanned musical conversation. There is always a theme – like a topic of conversation – but every player has a different idea of what to “say” about it. A piece of jazz develops like an after-dinner conversation where we all talk about the same thing but have different ideas or feelings about it.

“The audience buzzed (made an excited noise) with amazement and pleasure,” writes Zinsser after one number (piece of music) when Ruff told the audience, “That is called Shanghai Blues. We just made it up (created it now).”

One of the older professors got up and asked Mitchell and Ruff if they had a plan when they started to play Shanghai Blues. “No,” said Ruff, “I just started tapping (make a quiet noise by moving your foot up and down) my foot and played the first thought that came into my mind…. And Mitchell heard it. And he answered. And after that we heard and answered, heard and answered, heard and answered.”

The old professor asked if they could ever play the piece again. “No,” said Ruff, “We never can.”

“That is beyond our imagination (we can’t imagine that),” replied the professor. “Our students here play a piece a hundred times, or two hundred times, to get it exactly right. You play something once – something beautiful – and then you just throw it away.” For those of us who enjoy jazz, that is part of its attraction (what makes it interesting) – it’s always new, always different.

If you want to experience part of Mitchell and Ruff’s Shanghai experience, including hearing them create a new jazz piece based on (to use something to develop something new) a song written by one of  the Chinese students, you can do it by viewing this YouTube video.

Thanks to Mitchell and Ruff, and many other American jazz musicians, jazz has traveled around the world and is enjoyed today by people from virtually every country. And musicians like Lang Lang and Herbie Hancock can share the stage (perform together) to create something new.

~ Warren Ediger – creator of Successful English, where you’ll find clear explanations and practical suggestions for better English.

Photo credit: cover of Mitchell and Ruff: An American Profile in Jazz from Amazon.com.

Those who are getting married, the report says, are getting married later.  In the past 50 years, the age when men and women first marry has risen (gone up) six years.  For men, the age is now 28.7 and for women, 26.5.

These days, other living arrangements have become more popular.  Couples, people who are together romantically, may cohabit (live together) instead of getting married, and many children live in single-parent homes (with only a father or mother, not both).  The study points out (shows) that the U.S. is not alone in this shift (change) in rates of marriage.  In most post-industrial countries (countries where manufacturing (making products) becomes less important and developing services, information, and research become more important), marriage has become less popular, regardless of (despite) good or bad economic times.

Are these trends (direction that change is moving) the same where you live?  Are you married?  Are you cohabiting, or living with (we would say, more informally), someone?  Are you part of a single-parent family?

~ Lucy

Photo Credit: Cakeinwhitesatin from Wikipedia

1. Exercise more. I discovered recently that, although I wish otherwise (want something else or something different), I am getting a little older every year. My doctor that says the best thing for me to do is more exercise.  I already exercise everyday on a treadmill (a machine for walking), but I could stand to do (could benefit from doing) a little more, especially after all of that pumpkin pie I ate over the holidays.

2. Eat more pumpkin pie. Eating pumpkin pie is one of my favorite things in the world to do. So, hey, if I exercise more, I can eat more pie, right? Of course, if I eat more pie than I do now, I will need to exercise even more, but that just means I can then eat more pie and then…well, you get the idea.

3. Learn something new. I am what my father used to call a “professional student” – I was in school for so many years that it seemed as though that was my “career.” But the truth is I really do enjoy going to school and learning something new. Last year I took a couple of classes at my local community college, and I had a lot of fun, even though I was by far (easily) the oldest person in the class. I plan to do that again this year.

4. Spend less time watching television. It is too easy to sit down and spend half of your evening watching the silly programs that are on the TV. That time can be better spent talking to my wife and my family, reading a good book, or eating pumpkin pie.

5. Suffer fools (more) gladly. Fools are people who are do things we think are stupid or who might annoy (bother) us with their silly actions. To suffer usually means to undergo (experience) pain, but it can also mean to tolerate, to put up with someone. Gladly means happily.  There is an old expression that we should learn to suffer fools gladly, meaning that we should be more patient and kind to those whose behavior (actions) we don’t like, who are foolish, or who bother us in some way. I think we can all afford to do (are able to; will benefit from) that. We can make the world around us just a little bit nicer by being nicer ourselves.

What are five things you want to do more of, less of, or differently in 2012?

~Jeff

Photo credit: Treadmill by McQuillan

Articles and programs in the first category look back (to an earlier time) and reflect on (think carefully about) the previous year (the year before). Articles like this often try to identify important ideas, products, or people from the previous year. Sometimes they suggest lessons that we can learn from what happened during the last year. Jeff’s last blog post – Top 5 Memories of 2011 – falls into this category.

The second kind of article or program looks ahead (to a future time) to the next year and suggests resolutions (promises we make to our selves) – promises to be better, do more, eat less, or try something new. Some people jokingly (trying to be funny) insist (to say something strongly) that resolutions are made to be broken (not kept).

A few days ago I was intrigued (made curious) by a reflective article I saw called The Price of Greatness. To be more precise (accurate), I was intrigued by the title (name) of the article.

It’s easy to understand how the writer, Mark Sigal, is using the word “price.” He doesn’t mean the amount of money you have to pay to become great. I’m pretty sure (certain) he doesn’t believe that  money can buy greatness. No, when Sigal uses the word “price,” he means the time, effort (work), sacrifice (deciding not to have something so you can get something more important), and all the other things that are required (necessary) to be great. Greatness is not cheap (not expensive)! It always has a cost.

Mostly I was curious about how Sigal used the word “greatness.” I wondered (asked myself), “What is his idea of a great person?”

What do we usually mean when we say someone is great? Does it simply (only) mean that they are above average – being better in some way than most other people? Or does it mean that they have been very successful, based on (determined by) how much money they have or how popular or powerful they are?

As I read Sigal’s article, it became apparent (clear) that he was using “great” in a unique (special or certain) way. In his mind, a great person is someone who does something significant – something that is important because of how it will influence or affect people in the future. In other words, greatness is the ability to benefit (improve the lives of) other people many years into the future. I like this definition.

This idea of greatness is not new. In fact, it’s very similar to the idea of wisdom that you find in some ancient (very old) poetry. There, a wise person is often someone who creates long-lasting value, or benefit, for other people. If we think this way, a great or wise person could be almost anyone. It doesn’t have to be someone who is rich or famous. In fact, it could be you or me.

~ Warren Ediger – creator of Successful English.

Photo by W. Ediger.