Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Is there life after death?

Mark Twain photo portrait.Image via Wikipedia

The fine art of telling the tales of life after death

Colin Randall

Some of the finest writing to be found in the better newspapers appears on the obituary pages, where interesting or important lives are elegantly described in rich and often illuminating detail.

Most people, I imagine, would take pride in knowing their achievements were considered worthy of appraisal. Well-run obituaries departments prepare material for use when famous individuals die; it is not unknown for notable but ageing persons to be invited for lunch for the purposes of updating draft articles and checking basic facts.
By definition, obituaries are not supposed to be seen by their subjects. But there have been exceptions to this rule.

Six years ago, on my way to a folk music festival on the outskirts of the English city of Cambridge, I made a detour to Coventry to interview a musician called Dave Swarbrick.

He was witty, cheerful and bursting with anecdotes from his life as a folk-rock fiddler. It made for an interesting feature in The Daily Telegraph of London.

But for those who still believe all they read in the newspapers, he should not have been available for interview at all. Four years earlier, the Telegraph had published his obituary in the mistaken belief that a serious illness had proved fatal.

Mr Swarbrick recovered from both the illness and the shock of being pronounced dead. Fortunately, there was nothing in the article to disturb his convalescence. He was described as a man who could “electrify an audience with a single frenzied sweep of his bow”.

In time, he saw the lighter side of being written about as if deceased and produced the memorable one-liner: “It’s not the first time I’ve died in Coventry.”

There have been many instances of deaths being announced in error. The decision of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, to change his will and create the Peace Prize is said to have been influenced by his dismay at a French newspaper headline: “The merchant of death is dead”, the result of a simple case of mistaken identity (his brother had died).

Mr Swarbrick belongs to a rarer group of men and women who have been able to read full obituaries, the more reflective accounts of their lives that follow mere reports of death.

This has happened in a number of ways. The public was for a time able to view a section of the CNN website containing draft memorials to renowned individuals still living.

Some people have faked their own deaths. The motivation is usually criminal, as was the case with the former British government minister John Stonehouse in 1974. But Alan Abel, an American prankster, staged his demise five years later in the hope, duly fulfilled, of seeing his obituary in The New York Times.

The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia offers a list of innocent victims of erroneous death notices. They include popes and members of royalty, politicians and film stars.

Mark Twain, the American author, twice used articles of his own to respond to false suggestions that he had died.

On the first occasion, in 1897, confirmation that he was alive came soon enough to prevent the appearance of an obituary, though history records his wry comment: “The report of my death was an exaggeration.”

The public’s role in filling the pages of Wikipedia makes the site vulnerable to cyber vandalism. Just when I thought this article was complete, I came across an item in which the British journalist Alexander Chancellor wrote of his own entry being doctored so that December 10, 2009, was shown as the date of his death.

Mr Chancellor’s entry was quickly corrected. In common with Mr Twain and Mr Swarbrick before him, he rose above any sense of indignation, declared himself unconcerned that Wikipedia had not published an assessment of his life and concluded: “It’s pointless to care what people are going to think of you after you’re dead.”

Colin Randall in a contributing editor to The National and may be contacted atcrandall@thenational.ae


Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 17, 2009

The war toll & Tony Blair.....

Tony Blair, UN Middle East Quartet Representat...Image via Wikipedia
The War Toll - 12/13/09 - Tony Comes Clean, Your Turn George


December 13, 2009 08:09 PM EST (Updated: December 13, 2009 08:27 PM EST)

views: 165
comments: 25

Tony Blair has said that if the WMD ploy didn't work in the buildup to the war in Iraq, he would have found some other reason to launch the preemptive invasion. In an interview aired on the BBC this morning, he added that toppling Hussein was the correct thing to do and that Iraq was much better off today with a democratic process in place.



Relatives of the more than 100,000 Iraqis that lost their lives in the ensuing chaos might disagree with the ex-prime minister, as might the several million citizens who have had to leave their homes and, in many cases, their homeland. And the so-called democratic process is far from being solidly in place. There are many groups and powerful blocs that oppose the western-mandated form of government. Last week saw multiple car bomb attacks in Baghdad that claimed 127 lives and wounded over 500.



Meanwhile, Iran continues to be its slippery self. After weeks of delays, Tehran finally agreed, yesterday, to exchange uranium for nuclear fuel. But, hold on, there was a catch. Iran's foreign minister said that the exchange would take place in phases. That means they would still retain enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon, a certain deal breaker for the western powers.



The situation is not unlike the smoke and mirrors the U.S,. politicians are attempting to pull off in their various healthcare reform bills. In those cases, health insurers are being required to accept customer regardless of pre-existing conditions, but the companies are then being allowed to charge whatever they want.



So, in other words, Iran's and America's current politics are pretty much on the same wave length, but American politicians probably have a better chance of getting away with it.



The Department of Defense, last week, released the obituaries of three military personnel, 21,26 and 31, that were killed in separate rodside bomb attacks in Afghanistan. The website icasualties.org, reports that total U.S. deaths in that country now stand at 934.



The DOD also released the obituary of one 23-year-old Marine who died in Iraq. The death was classified as non-combat-related. Total U.S. deaths there now amount to 4,371, according to the above website.




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Cigarettes Kill!

A cigarette butt, lying in dirty snow.Image via Wikipedia
"Cigarettes kill," but don't tell smokers






www.chinaview.cn 2009-12-14 10:34:05 Print



BEIJING, Dec. 14 (Xinhuanet) -- Study shows that warnings related to self-esteem were more effective than those indicating "cigarettes kill" in reducing smoking, according to media reports quoting the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Monday.



Psychologists from the U.S., Switzerland and Germany conducted a small study and drew the conclusion that warnings such as "smoking makes you unattractive" or "smoking brings you and the people around you severe damage" do a better job in talking people out of their habit.



This worked especially well when people smoked to boost their self-esteem, such as young people who learned to smoke to become popular or fit in with their peers, the psychologists figured out.



"To succeed with anti-smoking messages on cigarette packs one has to take into account that considering their death may make people smoke," the study said.



A total of 39 psychology students, smokers aged between 17 and 41, participated in the study.



"On the one hand, death-related warnings were not effective and even ironically caused more positive smoking attitudes among smokers who based their self-esteem on smoking," the study said.



"On the other hand, warning messages that were unrelated to death effectively reduced smoking attitudes" among those who smoke for self-esteem.



(Agencies)





Editor: Deng Shasha


Enhanced by Zemanta

The differing protocols for police and military.......USA

A name tribute ("MUM") at a funeral ...Image via Wikipedia
SHOOTING: Police, military have different protocols


Share this storyBuzz up!

HELEN TALBO; Lakewood

Published: 12/17/09 12:05 am

Comments (1)

Recommend (0)Re: “Memorial: Why no spectacle for fallen soldiers?” (letter, 12-13).



Different protocols apply to funerals of police department and military personnel. Although police are global in solidarity, they are members of a local area. Consequently, a local police committee plans police funerals. One protocol is a public event that designates full military-style ceremonial honors for personnel who died in the line of duty. Law enforcement policies and procedures allow other agencies to participate in police funerals.



Protocol for a military honors funeral requires that the family of a deceased veteran, submit a request for a funeral honors unit to the secretary of defense. That ensures that a guard unit of at least two uniformed members of the armed forces is provided for any deserving veteran. A family may request additional uniformed personnel or a veterans’ organization, such as the American Legion.



A guard unit escorts the body to the site of ceremonial or religious rites and to funeral grounds, where at minimum, the guard unit plays “Taps,” folds and presents the U.S. flag to a family member, and expresses condolences to the family. The guard unit is dismissed from the burial site by the guard unit leader and concludes military funeral honors protocol. The guard unit may leave or remain until the family departs.



These distinct funeral arrangements for deceased police and military personnel may provide clarity to the writer with respect and honor accorded to the deceased personnel of each of these departments.


Enhanced by Zemanta