| ||||||||||||
CONTACT US TO SEE YOUR LOGO HERE!!| | The 6th Annual Happily Natural DaySatuday, August 30th 2008 Happily Natural Day: We Do it for the Cause Not Just Because |
Monday, June 30, 2008
Happily Natural Day 2008: Read, Reply & Forward
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Ryanair Press Conference about Trans Atlantic Service.
The "Mouth of the West" Michael O'Leary explains the frills (sic) available in Business Class when Ryanair launch their Trans Atlantic Service!
Ryanair Press Conference about Trans Atlantic Service.
The "Mouth of the West" Michael O'Leary explains the frills (sic) available in Business Class when Ryanair launch their Trans Atlantic Service!
Caprese
The Isle of Capri
In Italian restaurants the description “Caprese” has been rendered somewhat meaningless by being applied as a “catch all” description. Originally it meant simple rustic food from Campania as exemplified by the diet of the fishermen on Capri and particularly the simple salad made from the local ingredients of Buffalo Mozzarella, fresh tomatoes and fresh basil. Well there is very little simple about today’s Capri which has a well deserved reputation as a pit stop for the jet set trying to recapture the Dolce Vita. Not the one from Rome in the early 60’s but the one from the Emperor Tiberius 2000 years earlier. Here are some simple recipes which are typical of Capri.
Insalata Caprese
A delicious salad prepared exclusively with local produce: island grown tomatoes and the freshest Bufala Mozzarella.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Capri tomatoes
Mozzarella di Bufala or Fiordilatte cheese
Extra virgin olive oil
Fresh basil
Oregano, salt
Cut the tomatoes and mozzarella into slices and place them in alternating order on a plate.
Dress with extra virgin olive oil and a little salt.
Add a few leaves of fresh basil and oregano to taste.
Limoncello di Capri
Liqueur made using the lemons of Capri. An Excellent after dinner drink and splendid alternative to the Italian “amaro”. Capri and the Amalfi coast are famous for their lemons which are not like the shapely supermarket lemons we get in the UK. These lemons are left on the tree for two years and are 2 to 3 times the size of lemons we see in the UK. Their skins are rough and gnarled and it is this rind which is used to make the Limoncello.
Ingredients:
10 organically grown lemons
1 liter of alcohol (95°)
1 liter water
1 kg. sugar
Carefully remove the yellow part of the lemon peel. Infuse with the alcohol in a closed glass container for 20 days, shaking now and again. Sieve the infusion. Prepare the syrup with the hot water and sugar, let it cool and add to the infusion. Leave for another 10 days before bottling. Serve ice cold.
Caponata
An easy to prepare, wonderfully fresh dish which is ideal for a summer lunch. There are many types of Caponata, usually an eggplant dish from Sicily reflecting the Arabic influence and liking of the contrast between sweet and sour ingredients. This is the simpler Caprese version.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Loaf of Ciabatta bread
Cherry tomatoes
Mozzarella
Black and Green Olives
Basil, oil, salt
To taste: lettuce, rocket, tuna, and mackerel.
Soak the bread in plenty of water until soft.
Place all the ingredients in a large salad bowl, dress and serve immediately.
Chiummenzana
A quick to prepare pasta dish, using tomato and herbs, typical of the Mediterranean diet.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Cherry tomatoes
400 gr. spaghetti
Garlic, oil, peperoncino
Basil and oregano
In a frying pan, heat the oil and add the garlic and peperoncino. Add the tomatoes, basil, a pinch of oregano, and leave to cook for approximately 15 minutes. In the meantime place the water to boil. Cook the pasta until “al dente”, drain and toss in the pan with the sauce.
Serve immediately
Buon Appetito!
Caprese
The Isle of Capri
In Italian restaurants the description “Caprese” has been rendered somewhat meaningless by being applied as a “catch all” description. Originally it meant simple rustic food from Campania as exemplified by the diet of the fishermen on Capri and particularly the simple salad made from the local ingredients of Buffalo Mozzarella, fresh tomatoes and fresh basil. Well there is very little simple about today’s Capri which has a well deserved reputation as a pit stop for the jet set trying to recapture the Dolce Vita. Not the one from Rome in the early 60’s but the one from the Emperor Tiberius 2000 years earlier. Here are some simple recipes which are typical of Capri.
Insalata Caprese
A delicious salad prepared exclusively with local produce: island grown tomatoes and the freshest Bufala Mozzarella.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Capri tomatoes
Mozzarella di Bufala or Fiordilatte cheese
Extra virgin olive oil
Fresh basil
Oregano, salt
Cut the tomatoes and mozzarella into slices and place them in alternating order on a plate.
Dress with extra virgin olive oil and a little salt.
Add a few leaves of fresh basil and oregano to taste.
Limoncello di Capri
Liqueur made using the lemons of Capri. An Excellent after dinner drink and splendid alternative to the Italian “amaro”. Capri and the Amalfi coast are famous for their lemons which are not like the shapely supermarket lemons we get in the UK. These lemons are left on the tree for two years and are 2 to 3 times the size of lemons we see in the UK. Their skins are rough and gnarled and it is this rind which is used to make the Limoncello.
Ingredients:
10 organically grown lemons
1 liter of alcohol (95°)
1 liter water
1 kg. sugar
Carefully remove the yellow part of the lemon peel. Infuse with the alcohol in a closed glass container for 20 days, shaking now and again. Sieve the infusion. Prepare the syrup with the hot water and sugar, let it cool and add to the infusion. Leave for another 10 days before bottling. Serve ice cold.
Caponata
An easy to prepare, wonderfully fresh dish which is ideal for a summer lunch. There are many types of Caponata, usually an eggplant dish from Sicily reflecting the Arabic influence and liking of the contrast between sweet and sour ingredients. This is the simpler Caprese version.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Loaf of Ciabatta bread
Cherry tomatoes
Mozzarella
Black and Green Olives
Basil, oil, salt
To taste: lettuce, rocket, tuna, and mackerel.
Soak the bread in plenty of water until soft.
Place all the ingredients in a large salad bowl, dress and serve immediately.
Chiummenzana
A quick to prepare pasta dish, using tomato and herbs, typical of the Mediterranean diet.
Ingredients for 4 people:
Cherry tomatoes
400 gr. spaghetti
Garlic, oil, peperoncino
Basil and oregano
In a frying pan, heat the oil and add the garlic and peperoncino. Add the tomatoes, basil, a pinch of oregano, and leave to cook for approximately 15 minutes. In the meantime place the water to boil. Cook the pasta until “al dente”, drain and toss in the pan with the sauce.
Serve immediately
Buon Appetito!
Friday, June 27, 2008
Rebel Diaz Apt Invaded by Police
LATEST RELEASE June 25 1pm*:
REBEL DIAZ MEMBER G1's APARTMENT STORMED BY NYPD EARLY THIS MORNING,
DAYS AFTER BRUTALITY INCIDENT;
ARMED, WARRANTLESS INVASION WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE HAS COMMUNITY
FEARING NYPD SCARE TACTICS.
PERSONAL STATEMENT FROM G1 OF REBEL DIAZ:
Early this morning, at around 2am, I, Gonzalo Venegas aka G1 of Rebel
Diaz, was in my home in Harlem, working on my computer in the living
room, when several police officers burst into my unlocked apartment,
with guns drawn, ordering us to get down and put our hands up.
I was in the apartment with my roommate DW who was in the adjacent bedroom, and my friend MM, who slept on the couch nearby.
Both were awakened by the home invasion and were witnesses to the events occurred.
The uniformed police officers did not knock, nor announce themselves, nor
verbally identify themselves before or during their entry into my
apartment.
They pointed their guns at us the whole time as they verbally barraged MM and I with questions as to who we were and what we were doing there.
As I lay on the ground with my hands up, I replied loudly and clearly that I lived there, and that everyone in the house was supposed to be there.
They replied incredulously, repeatedly yelling their questions as to who we were, with threats as to what would happen to us if I was found to be lying.
After various other taunts and threats, including accusing us of harboring a fugitive criminal suspect, they departed just as quickly as they had arrived, down a side stairway adjacent to my apartment.
They did not stay to search me or my roommates, or the apartment for any signs of the supposed fugitive they were looking for.
After a few seconds of disbelief and shock, I decided to follow the officers outside in order to fully understand what had just happened, and to document their identity.
One police van sped off as I came out of the side door of my building.
The remaining police squad car was pealing off when I ran into the middle of the street to flag it down.
They stopped the car, as I respectfully asked for their name and badge numbers.
Both police officers allowed me to walk closer to them, as I verbally noted their name and badge numbers.
The officers quickly got back into their squad car, provided no explanation for the home invasion, and sped off.
I was left in a state of shock and terror, as I frantically asked some of my neighbors outside if they knew of why the police had entered my building- and specifically my apartment--without justification.
I received no conclusive answers from the residents outside.
As of 10:30pm EST on Tuesday June 24, 2008,I have not received any official explanation for the events occurred, neither from the police precinct nor my building manager or owner, despite numerous calls and
requests for an explanation.
Both the 25th and 23rd NYPD precinct, which patrol my block, have denied that the officers involved are from their command.
The questions as to why several armed police officers mysteriously and violently invaded my home without any clear legal justification remain unanswered.
One is left only to think that the occurrences of this morning are not a coincidence of mistaken identity, but a direct response by the NYPD to an incident of police brutality I was involved in last week in the South Bronx.
Until we have a clear understanding of the causes and the people behind this morning's home invasion, Rebel Diaz will engage in limited communication outside of our legal representation.
We are not looking for the next NYPD scare tactic to turn into a tragedy.
For more information regarding the incidents of police brutality
against G1 and Rodstarz of Rebel Diaz last week, and the pending case
them, please visit www.rebeldiaz.com
REBEL DIAZ MEMBER G1's APARTMENT STORMED BY NYPD EARLY THIS MORNING,
DAYS AFTER BRUTALITY INCIDENT;
ARMED, WARRANTLESS INVASION WITH NO PROBABLE CAUSE HAS COMMUNITY
FEARING NYPD SCARE TACTICS.
PERSONAL STATEMENT FROM G1 OF REBEL DIAZ:
Early this morning, at around 2am, I, Gonzalo Venegas aka G1 of Rebel
Diaz, was in my home in Harlem, working on my computer in the living
room, when several police officers burst into my unlocked apartment,
with guns drawn, ordering us to get down and put our hands up.
I was in the apartment with my roommate DW who was in the adjacent bedroom, and my friend MM, who slept on the couch nearby.
Both were awakened by the home invasion and were witnesses to the events occurred.
The uniformed police officers did not knock, nor announce themselves, nor
verbally identify themselves before or during their entry into my
apartment.
They pointed their guns at us the whole time as they verbally barraged MM and I with questions as to who we were and what we were doing there.
As I lay on the ground with my hands up, I replied loudly and clearly that I lived there, and that everyone in the house was supposed to be there.
They replied incredulously, repeatedly yelling their questions as to who we were, with threats as to what would happen to us if I was found to be lying.
After various other taunts and threats, including accusing us of harboring a fugitive criminal suspect, they departed just as quickly as they had arrived, down a side stairway adjacent to my apartment.
They did not stay to search me or my roommates, or the apartment for any signs of the supposed fugitive they were looking for.
After a few seconds of disbelief and shock, I decided to follow the officers outside in order to fully understand what had just happened, and to document their identity.
One police van sped off as I came out of the side door of my building.
The remaining police squad car was pealing off when I ran into the middle of the street to flag it down.
They stopped the car, as I respectfully asked for their name and badge numbers.
Both police officers allowed me to walk closer to them, as I verbally noted their name and badge numbers.
The officers quickly got back into their squad car, provided no explanation for the home invasion, and sped off.
I was left in a state of shock and terror, as I frantically asked some of my neighbors outside if they knew of why the police had entered my building- and specifically my apartment--without justification.
I received no conclusive answers from the residents outside.
As of 10:30pm EST on Tuesday June 24, 2008,I have not received any official explanation for the events occurred, neither from the police precinct nor my building manager or owner, despite numerous calls and
requests for an explanation.
Both the 25th and 23rd NYPD precinct, which patrol my block, have denied that the officers involved are from their command.
The questions as to why several armed police officers mysteriously and violently invaded my home without any clear legal justification remain unanswered.
One is left only to think that the occurrences of this morning are not a coincidence of mistaken identity, but a direct response by the NYPD to an incident of police brutality I was involved in last week in the South Bronx.
Until we have a clear understanding of the causes and the people behind this morning's home invasion, Rebel Diaz will engage in limited communication outside of our legal representation.
We are not looking for the next NYPD scare tactic to turn into a tragedy.
For more information regarding the incidents of police brutality
against G1 and Rodstarz of Rebel Diaz last week, and the pending case
them, please visit www.rebeldiaz.com
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Toxic Blacklist
The BBC has reported that Employers have begun a blacklist of “bad” employees who have been dismissed or those who have left before disciplinary proceedings can be commenced. To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare. An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty, regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which bosses can access when vetting potential employees. But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.
Harrods and Selfridges are among two of Britain's best known high street businesses to have signed up to a controversial database for blacklisted staff that could affect the careers of three million workers. Under the privately run scheme, the names and personal details of former employees whose behaviour has offended the companies will be placed on the newly created National Staff Dismissal Register.
While some employees whose crimes are prosecuted in court will have a chance to defend themselves, other staff may never know their behaviour has found its way on to the register or that they have become a blacklisted worker. Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register, regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them. Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could face disciplinary proceedings at work. Seven businesses have so far signed up to the register, which went live last month, according to the scheme's organiser, Action Against Business Crime. They include Mothercare and Reed Managed Services.
Politicians and lawyers condemned the database and called on the Government to bring in immediate safeguards to protect employees. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, Baroness Sue Miller, said it was "a disgrace that the Government has ignored the rights of employees while private businesses have established a blacklist with no safeguards for the employees put on it".
Baroness Miller added: "A website run for profit is trying to take the place of police, prosecution, judge and jury. There need to be stringent safeguards put in place on this blacklist. "Employees should not be placed on the register until they have been given the opportunity to object. The burden must be on employers to prove an employee's guilt before they are entered on the register."
But Action Against Business Crime says the register will comply with data protection legislation and will hold details of individuals who have been under investigation for acts of dishonesty. "This information is shared with other members of the register who are able to access the national system to search for details of an applicant, ensuring both cost saving through reduction in losses, and a more efficient recruitment process," said Action Against Business Crime.
Selfridges said that any offence that was sent to the register would be properly investigated and that appropriate efforts would be made to notify the former member of staff. A spokeswoman for Harrods, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed, said the company had agreed in principle to sign up to the National Staff Dismissal Register. She added: "Our existing internal disciplinary procedures ensure that no person subject to a frivolous or malevolent allegation would find themselves on the register.”We believe that our involvement with the scheme will give extra reassurance to current staff and customers alike."
Well these PR words pale against the proven, documented track record of Mohamed Al Fayed which demonstrates the great danger of the scheme and the damage to employees from this covert Kangaroo Court where no ACAS guidelines need be followed, no employee has a right of representation or appeal and where in Defamation Law malice and an intention to cause harm to the individuals listed can be assumed, for why else have this database other than to stop people being successful in applying for jobs? There is not just the Department of Trade inquiry which found "We are satisfied the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely bogus." He was later accused by his business rival Tiny Rowland of breaking into a safety deposit box at the store. Without admitting responsibility, Mr Al Fayed settled the dispute with Rowland's wife after his death. Al Fayed had been arrested during the dispute and sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest in 2002. He lost the case. He has been refused a British Passport by no less than four Home Secretary’s on character grounds, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. Mohamed Fayed was also involved in the cash for questions scandal, having offered money for questions in the commons to the Conservative MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. Both left the government in disgrace. Fayed also revealed that the cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken had stayed for free at the Ritz Hotel in Paris at the same time as a group of Saudi arms dealers leading to Aitken's subsequent unsuccessful libel case and imprisonment for perjury.
His record as an employer and as a reliable witness begs scrutiny and includes:
• The substantial number of out of court settlements by Fayed for sexual harassment by Harrods and Fayair (His executive jet business) employees
• Fayed's recorded quotation that the reason he wanted British citizenship was that he didn't like queuing up with the Pakis at Heathrow
• The number of occasions upon which Harrods employees have successfully obtained a finding of racial discrimination at an employment tribunal
• The resignation of the managing director of Harrods Bank, citing improper practices instructed to him by Fayed, leading to the interest taken in the probity of the arrangements there by the Bank of England, which led to Harrods subcontracting the operation of the bank to a reputable bank
• The opening of a safe deposit box belonging to a customer of Harrods Bank, being a person Fayed was known to have an interest in
• The DTI's conclusion that he lied to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its investigation of the take-over of Harrods
• His bribe to a member of parliament to facilitate his getting citizenship
• His subsequent admission of that bribe to embarrass the MP when he failed to deliver it
• His apparent almost daily handling of very large sums of cash which get handed out to people
• His loss of an Employment Tribunal case taken by the former Fulham Manager in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd V Jean Tigana. (£3m award against Al Fayed)
• Diana’s Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones V Al Fayed (County Court 2000, Breach of Contract).
The main source for much of the above is Tom Bower's book "Fayed", which itself has very detailed sources. Bower is very careful in what he says, and no one has successfully sued Bower for libel, despite frequent threats to do so. So no doubting the quality of the entries on the Toxic Blacklist then!
But Kerry Waters, an employment rights expert at Clarions Solicitors, said that the register was potentially "wide open to abuse, with little detail being provided by the Action Against Business Crime Group as to how (or even whether at all) the register will be policed or monitored." She warned that one "minor blip" on someone's record "could wreak havoc with their career".
There is a dilemma here. When firms detect dishonesty it certainly reflects on the employee but it also reflects on the control systems and oversight in the company. For this reason companies rarely prosecute - it exposes weakness in their systems and inadequate management. It is the first principle of Justice that it should be public and open - If companies feel they have been the victims of fraud and dishonesty they should have the courage of their convictions to prosecute with all that entails, including reputational risk.
Otherwise a blacklist is unethical and guaranteed to lead to successful actions for defamation and breach of Data Protection legislation - it is a poltroonerish way of having your cake and eating it? So this Toxic Blacklist is a clear breach of the rules of natural justice and the Human Rights, can be negated by requests under the Data Protection Act to remove individual subject data and it is a ready made grudge weapon for every inept and incompetent employer who does not follow due process and ACAS guidelines and has grudges against employees including whistleblowers who are protected by statute. Nor is there any possible equity with employees suing employers and a "Bad Employer Database" being created. As an analogy customers sue and get judgements against Banks all the time. Effect on Bank; virtually zero. Bank gets judgement against customer; effect on customer? Catastrophic!
So what is the sound of sharpening wood and laughter you hear in the background? Why it is the lawyers of Britain sharpening their pencils and laughing their heads off that the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) has made proving malice and seeking damages so easy! I predict writs at dawn!
Toxic Blacklist
The BBC has reported that Employers have begun a blacklist of “bad” employees who have been dismissed or those who have left before disciplinary proceedings can be commenced. To critics it sounds like a scenario from some Orwellian nightmare. An online database of workers accused of theft and dishonesty, regardless of whether they have been convicted of any crime, which bosses can access when vetting potential employees. But this is no dystopian fantasy. Later this month, the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) is expected to go live.
Harrods and Selfridges are among two of Britain's best known high street businesses to have signed up to a controversial database for blacklisted staff that could affect the careers of three million workers. Under the privately run scheme, the names and personal details of former employees whose behaviour has offended the companies will be placed on the newly created National Staff Dismissal Register.
While some employees whose crimes are prosecuted in court will have a chance to defend themselves, other staff may never know their behaviour has found its way on to the register or that they have become a blacklisted worker. Workers sacked for these offences will be included on the register, regardless of whether police had enough evidence to convict them. Also on the list will be employees who resigned before they could face disciplinary proceedings at work. Seven businesses have so far signed up to the register, which went live last month, according to the scheme's organiser, Action Against Business Crime. They include Mothercare and Reed Managed Services.
Politicians and lawyers condemned the database and called on the Government to bring in immediate safeguards to protect employees. The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, Baroness Sue Miller, said it was "a disgrace that the Government has ignored the rights of employees while private businesses have established a blacklist with no safeguards for the employees put on it".
Baroness Miller added: "A website run for profit is trying to take the place of police, prosecution, judge and jury. There need to be stringent safeguards put in place on this blacklist. "Employees should not be placed on the register until they have been given the opportunity to object. The burden must be on employers to prove an employee's guilt before they are entered on the register."
But Action Against Business Crime says the register will comply with data protection legislation and will hold details of individuals who have been under investigation for acts of dishonesty. "This information is shared with other members of the register who are able to access the national system to search for details of an applicant, ensuring both cost saving through reduction in losses, and a more efficient recruitment process," said Action Against Business Crime.
Selfridges said that any offence that was sent to the register would be properly investigated and that appropriate efforts would be made to notify the former member of staff. A spokeswoman for Harrods, which is owned by Mohamed Al Fayed, said the company had agreed in principle to sign up to the National Staff Dismissal Register. She added: "Our existing internal disciplinary procedures ensure that no person subject to a frivolous or malevolent allegation would find themselves on the register.”We believe that our involvement with the scheme will give extra reassurance to current staff and customers alike."
Well these PR words pale against the proven, documented track record of Mohamed Al Fayed which demonstrates the great danger of the scheme and the damage to employees from this covert Kangaroo Court where no ACAS guidelines need be followed, no employee has a right of representation or appeal and where in Defamation Law malice and an intention to cause harm to the individuals listed can be assumed, for why else have this database other than to stop people being successful in applying for jobs? There is not just the Department of Trade inquiry which found "We are satisfied the image they created between November 1984 and March 1985 of their wealthy Egyptian ancestors was completely bogus." He was later accused by his business rival Tiny Rowland of breaking into a safety deposit box at the store. Without admitting responsibility, Mr Al Fayed settled the dispute with Rowland's wife after his death. Al Fayed had been arrested during the dispute and sued the Metropolitan Police for false arrest in 2002. He lost the case. He has been refused a British Passport by no less than four Home Secretary’s on character grounds, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal. Mohamed Fayed was also involved in the cash for questions scandal, having offered money for questions in the commons to the Conservative MPs Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith. Both left the government in disgrace. Fayed also revealed that the cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken had stayed for free at the Ritz Hotel in Paris at the same time as a group of Saudi arms dealers leading to Aitken's subsequent unsuccessful libel case and imprisonment for perjury.
His record as an employer and as a reliable witness begs scrutiny and includes:
• The substantial number of out of court settlements by Fayed for sexual harassment by Harrods and Fayair (His executive jet business) employees
• Fayed's recorded quotation that the reason he wanted British citizenship was that he didn't like queuing up with the Pakis at Heathrow
• The number of occasions upon which Harrods employees have successfully obtained a finding of racial discrimination at an employment tribunal
• The resignation of the managing director of Harrods Bank, citing improper practices instructed to him by Fayed, leading to the interest taken in the probity of the arrangements there by the Bank of England, which led to Harrods subcontracting the operation of the bank to a reputable bank
• The opening of a safe deposit box belonging to a customer of Harrods Bank, being a person Fayed was known to have an interest in
• The DTI's conclusion that he lied to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its investigation of the take-over of Harrods
• His bribe to a member of parliament to facilitate his getting citizenship
• His subsequent admission of that bribe to embarrass the MP when he failed to deliver it
• His apparent almost daily handling of very large sums of cash which get handed out to people
• His loss of an Employment Tribunal case taken by the former Fulham Manager in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd V Jean Tigana. (£3m award against Al Fayed)
• Diana’s Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones V Al Fayed (County Court 2000, Breach of Contract).
The main source for much of the above is Tom Bower's book "Fayed", which itself has very detailed sources. Bower is very careful in what he says, and no one has successfully sued Bower for libel, despite frequent threats to do so. So no doubting the quality of the entries on the Toxic Blacklist then!
But Kerry Waters, an employment rights expert at Clarions Solicitors, said that the register was potentially "wide open to abuse, with little detail being provided by the Action Against Business Crime Group as to how (or even whether at all) the register will be policed or monitored." She warned that one "minor blip" on someone's record "could wreak havoc with their career".
There is a dilemma here. When firms detect dishonesty it certainly reflects on the employee but it also reflects on the control systems and oversight in the company. For this reason companies rarely prosecute - it exposes weakness in their systems and inadequate management. It is the first principle of Justice that it should be public and open - If companies feel they have been the victims of fraud and dishonesty they should have the courage of their convictions to prosecute with all that entails, including reputational risk.
Otherwise a blacklist is unethical and guaranteed to lead to successful actions for defamation and breach of Data Protection legislation - it is a poltroonerish way of having your cake and eating it? So this Toxic Blacklist is a clear breach of the rules of natural justice and the Human Rights, can be negated by requests under the Data Protection Act to remove individual subject data and it is a ready made grudge weapon for every inept and incompetent employer who does not follow due process and ACAS guidelines and has grudges against employees including whistleblowers who are protected by statute. Nor is there any possible equity with employees suing employers and a "Bad Employer Database" being created. As an analogy customers sue and get judgements against Banks all the time. Effect on Bank; virtually zero. Bank gets judgement against customer; effect on customer? Catastrophic!
So what is the sound of sharpening wood and laughter you hear in the background? Why it is the lawyers of Britain sharpening their pencils and laughing their heads off that the National Staff Dismissal Register (NSDR) has made proving malice and seeking damages so easy! I predict writs at dawn!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Obama Supports Illegal Wiretaps?
(Salon) In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.
Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.
It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.
The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.
This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.
Last night, Greg Sargent wrote that the most infuriating aspect of what Obama did here "is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country"; that Obama's "candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong"; and that "this time, he abandoned that premise," even though:
if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.
This superb piece from The Technology Liberation Front makes the same argument:
We are, in other words, right back to the narrative where being "strong" on national security means trashing the constitution. . . . . This is doubly disappointing because until now Obama has been a master at re-framing national security debates to get out of this box. Unlike John Kerry, he has refused to shy away from a confrontational posture on foreign policy issues. He's shown a willingness to say he has a better foreign policy vision, rather than simply insisting he can be just as tough on the terrorists as the Republicans are. He could and should have done the same with FISA, taking the opportunity to explain why warrantless surveillance isn't necessary to protect us from the terrorists. But it seems he, along with Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid, chickened out. So it's back to Republicans being tough on national security and Democrats defensively insisting that they, too, hate terrorists more than they love the constitution.
It's either that he "chickened out" or -- as Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin asserts and Digby wonders -- Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he'll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good. Whatever the motives -- and I don't know (or much care) what they are -- Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse, has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.
Making matters worse still, what Obama did yesterday is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago. As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." MoveOn believes Obama should be held to his word and is thus conducting a campaign urging Obama to do what he promised -- support a filibuster to stop the enactment of telecom amnesty. You can email Burton here to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty:
bburton@barackobama.com
Incidentally, Chris Dodd made an identical promise when he was running for President, prompting the support of hundreds of thousands of new contributors, and he ought to be held to his promise as well.
The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.
Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.
What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.
The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.
Having said all of that, the other extreme -- declaring that Obama is now Evil Incarnate, no better than John McCain, etc. etc. -- is no better. Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional). The commenter sysprog described perfectly the irrational excesses of both extremes the other day:
Argh
Why are so many four-year-olds and fourteen-year-olds making comments on blogs?
Four-year-olds see their preferred politicians as god-like fathers (or mothers) whose virtuous character will guarantee good judgment. If a judgment looks questionable to you, then it's because you don't know all the facts that mommy and daddy know, or it's because you aren't as wise as them.
Fourteen-year-olds have had their illusions shattered about those devilish politicians so now they perceive the TRUTH - - that mommy and daddy make bad judgments because mommy and daddy are utterly corrupt.
Personally, I can empathize with the impulses behind the latter far more than the former, even while recognizing that they both must be diligently avoided. It's understandable that there is a substantial sense of anger and betrayal towards Obama as a result of what he did yesterday, particularly among those who previously viewed him as something transcendent and "different." Quoting Shakespeare is always slightly pompous (at least) but -- with apologies in advance -- his observation in Sonnet 94 is too apropos here to refrain:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter.
Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind -- probably more so -- when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.
The campaign against politicians who are enabling this assault on our Constitutional framework, core civil liberties and the rule of law has now raised close to $300,000. My explanation about the current plans for these funds, in response to a commenter's inquiries, can be read here. Contributions to that campaign can be made here.
In comments, Hume's Ghost wrote:
What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I'll use them responsibly.
Nope.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams [1772].
In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: "Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions." Between (a) relying on the limitations imposed by the Constitution or (b) placing faith in the promises of a political leader not to abuse his unchecked power, it isn't really a difficult choice -- at least it ought not to be, no matter who the political leader in question happens to be. (source)
Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.
It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.
The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.
This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.
Last night, Greg Sargent wrote that the most infuriating aspect of what Obama did here "is that since the outset of the campaign he's seemed absolutely dead serious about changing the way foreign policy is discussed and argued about in this country"; that Obama's "candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong"; and that "this time, he abandoned that premise," even though:
if there were ever anything that would have tested his operating premise throughout this campaign -- that you can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- it was this legislation. If ever there were anything that deserved to test this premise, it was this legislation.
This superb piece from The Technology Liberation Front makes the same argument:
We are, in other words, right back to the narrative where being "strong" on national security means trashing the constitution. . . . . This is doubly disappointing because until now Obama has been a master at re-framing national security debates to get out of this box. Unlike John Kerry, he has refused to shy away from a confrontational posture on foreign policy issues. He's shown a willingness to say he has a better foreign policy vision, rather than simply insisting he can be just as tough on the terrorists as the Republicans are. He could and should have done the same with FISA, taking the opportunity to explain why warrantless surveillance isn't necessary to protect us from the terrorists. But it seems he, along with Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid, chickened out. So it's back to Republicans being tough on national security and Democrats defensively insisting that they, too, hate terrorists more than they love the constitution.
It's either that he "chickened out" or -- as Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin asserts and Digby wonders -- Obama believes he will be President and wants these extreme powers for himself, no doubt, he believes, because he'll exercise them magnanimously, for our Own Good. Whatever the motives -- and I don't know (or much care) what they are -- Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse, has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.
Making matters worse still, what Obama did yesterday is in clear tension with an emphatic promise that he made just months ago. As the extremely pro-Obama MoveOn.org notes today, Obama's spokesman, Bill Burton, back in in September, vowed that Obama would "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." MoveOn believes Obama should be held to his word and is thus conducting a campaign urging Obama to do what he promised -- support a filibuster to stop the enactment of telecom amnesty. You can email Burton here to demand that Obama comply with his commitment not just to vote against, but to filibuster, telecom amnesty:
bburton@barackobama.com
Incidentally, Chris Dodd made an identical promise when he was running for President, prompting the support of hundreds of thousands of new contributors, and he ought to be held to his promise as well.
The excuse that Obama's support for this bill is politically shrewd is -- even if accurate -- neither a defense of what he did nor a reason to refrain from loudly criticizing him for it. Actually, it's the opposite. It's precisely because Obama is calculating that he can -- without real consequence -- trample upon the political values of those who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law that it's necessary to do what one can to change that calculus. Telling Obama that you'll cheer for him no matter what he does, that you'll vest in him Blind Faith that anything he does is done with the purest of motives, ensures that he will continue to ignore you and your political interests.
Beyond that, this attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion -- neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it -- and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.
What Barack Obama did here was wrong and destructive. He's supporting a bill that is a full-scale assault on our Constitution and an endorsement of the premise that our laws can be broken by the political and corporate elite whenever the scary specter of The Terrorists can be invoked to justify it. What's more, as a Constitutional Law Professor, he knows full well what a radical perversion of our Constitution this bill is, and yet he's supporting it anyway. Anyone who sugarcoats or justifies that is doing a real disservice to their claimed political values and to the truth.
The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies.
Having said all of that, the other extreme -- declaring that Obama is now Evil Incarnate, no better than John McCain, etc. etc. -- is no better. Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional). The commenter sysprog described perfectly the irrational excesses of both extremes the other day:
Argh
Why are so many four-year-olds and fourteen-year-olds making comments on blogs?
Four-year-olds see their preferred politicians as god-like fathers (or mothers) whose virtuous character will guarantee good judgment. If a judgment looks questionable to you, then it's because you don't know all the facts that mommy and daddy know, or it's because you aren't as wise as them.
Fourteen-year-olds have had their illusions shattered about those devilish politicians so now they perceive the TRUTH - - that mommy and daddy make bad judgments because mommy and daddy are utterly corrupt.
Personally, I can empathize with the impulses behind the latter far more than the former, even while recognizing that they both must be diligently avoided. It's understandable that there is a substantial sense of anger and betrayal towards Obama as a result of what he did yesterday, particularly among those who previously viewed him as something transcendent and "different." Quoting Shakespeare is always slightly pompous (at least) but -- with apologies in advance -- his observation in Sonnet 94 is too apropos here to refrain:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
If there is one good thing that can come from this week's horrific embrace by Obama and our bipartisan political establishment of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter.
Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind -- probably more so -- when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.
The campaign against politicians who are enabling this assault on our Constitutional framework, core civil liberties and the rule of law has now raised close to $300,000. My explanation about the current plans for these funds, in response to a commenter's inquiries, can be read here. Contributions to that campaign can be made here.
In comments, Hume's Ghost wrote:
What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I'll use them responsibly.
Nope.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams [1772].
In 1799, Thomas Jefferson echoed that: "Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions." Between (a) relying on the limitations imposed by the Constitution or (b) placing faith in the promises of a political leader not to abuse his unchecked power, it isn't really a difficult choice -- at least it ought not to be, no matter who the political leader in question happens to be. (source)
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Why do they say that? - No. 1
The Celtic Sage has a certain interest in etymology so here is the first of an occasional series on word origins – the next one will be on the 694 sayings of John Milton which have entered the English language – three times more than the sayings attributed to William Shakespeare!
However let us start with the Bard. Anne Hathaway was the wife of William Shakespeare. She married at the age of 26 which was really unusual for the time. Most people married young, at the age of 11 or 12. However life in England in the 1500’s was not as romantic as we may picture it. Here are some examples:
Anne Hathaway's home was a 3 bedroom house with a small parlour, which was seldom used (only for company), kitchen, and no bathroom. Mother and Father shared a bedroom. Anne had a queen sized bed, but did not sleep alone. She also had 2 other sisters and they shared the bed also with 6 servant girls. (This is before she married) They didn't sleep like we do lengthwise but all laid on the bed crosswise. At least they had a bed. The other bedroom was shared by her 6 brothers and 30 field workers. They didn't have a bed. Everyone just wrapped up in their blanket and slept on the floor. They had no indoor heating so all the extra bodies kept them warm. They were also small people, the men only grew to be about 5'6" and the women were 4'8". In their house they had 27 people living.
Most people got married in June. Why? They took their yearly bath in May, so they were till smelling pretty good by June, although they were starting to smell, so the brides would carry a bouquet of flowers to hide their B.O. Like I said, they took their yearly bath in May, but it was just a big tub that they would fill with hot water. The man of the house would get the privilege of the nice clean water. Then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all to have a bath were the babies. By then the water was pretty thick. Thus, the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water," it was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it.
Let’s describe their houses a little. You've heard of thatch roofs, well that's all they were. Thick straw, piled high, with no wood underneath. They were the only place for the little animals to get warm. So all the pets; dogs, cats and other small animals, mice, rats, bugs, all lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery so sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Thus the saying, "it's raining cats and dogs." Since there was nothing to stop things from falling into the house they would just try to clean up a lot. But this posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings from animals could really mess up your nice clean bed, so they found if they would make beds with big posts and hang a sheet over the top it would prevent that problem. That's where those traditionall big 4 poster beds with canopies came from.
When you came into the house you would notice most times that the floor was compacted dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt, that's where the saying "dirt poor" came from. The wealthy would have slate or stone floors. That was fine but in the winter they would get slippery when they got wet. So they started to spread straw thresh on the floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on they would just keep adding it and adding it until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. So they put a piece of wood at the entry way, a "thresh hold". In the kitchen they would cook over the fire, they had a fireplace in the kitchen/parlour, that was seldom used and sometimes in the master bedroom. They had a big kettle that always hung over the fire and every day they would light the fire and start adding things to the pot. Mostly they ate vegetables, as they didn't get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner then leave the leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes the stew would have food in it that had been in there for a month! Thus the rhyme: “peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
Sometimes they could get a hold of some pork. They really felt special when that happened and when company came over they even had a rack in the parlour where they would bring out some bacon and hang it to show it off. That was a sign of wealth and that a man "could really bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and they would all sit around and "chew the fat."
If you had money your plates were made out of pewter. Sometimes some of their food had a high acid content and some of the lead would leach out into the food. They really noticed it happened with tomatoes. So they stopped eating tomatoes, for 400 years. Most people didn't have pewter plates though; they all had trenchers, which were a piece of wood with the middle scooped out like a bowl. They never washed their boards and a lot of times worms would get into the wood. After eating off the trencher with worms they would get "trench mouth." It also gives us the English word "Trencherman" for somebody who likes their food.If you were going travelling and wanted to stay at an Inn they usually provided the bed but not the board. The bread was divided according to status. The workers would get the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family would get the middle and guests would get the top, or the "upper crust". They also had lead cups and when they would drink their ale or whiskey. The combination would sometimes knock them out for a couple of days.
They would be walking along the road and here would be someone knocked out and they thought they were dead. So they would pick them up and take them home and get them ready to bury. They realised if they were too slow about it, the person would wake up. Also, maybe not all of the people they were burying were dead. So they would lay them out on the kitchen table for a couple of days, the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up. That's where the custom of holding a "wake" came from. Since England is so old and small they started running out of places to bury people. So they started digging up some coffins and would take their bones to a house and re-use the grave. They started opening these coffins and found some had scratch marks on the inside. One out of 25 coffins were that way and they realised they had still been burying people alive. So they thought they would tie a string on their wrist and lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night to listen for the bell. That is how the saying "graveyard shift" was made. If the bell would ring they would know that someone was "saved by the bell" or he was a "dead ringer".
Then there were baby's high chair (with holes in the seat (a.k.a. "drainage chair") -During the winter months, young babies were strapped into their chairs and were never allowed to crawl around in the hay on the stone-cold floor. They didn't wear any diapers of any sort. They sat in that chair all day... and you know why there were holes in their chair!
“To beat around the bush” - Game birds were scared out of their hiding places under bushes and then killed. “The bee's knees” - the very best, the most desirable. Example: "Everyone agreed that Harry's diamond studded cufflinks were just the bee's knees." This strange expression is one of many that emerged during the 1920s "flapper" period, when anything excellent was likely to receive a catchphrase having something to do with an animal part. There were "monkey's eyebrows," "gnat's elbows," "bullfrog's beard," "elephant's adenoids," "cat's pyjamas," and many more. “The bitter end” - If you hang on to the bitter end, you are extending your efforts without giving up, even if it means you keep trying until you ultimately fail. Example: "Although he was limping on a sprained ankle and last in the race, Hugh kept running right to the bitter end." Although the end of one's efforts may be bitter, the original phrase was a nautical expression that had nothing to do with bitterness. On a ship, the bollards (posts) on which cables are wound are called bitts, a bitter is one turn of the cable around the bitt, and the bitter end is the last loop of cable. If a cable is let out to the bitter end, then there is no more slack, and the ship could be damaged by a large swell or rough weather. On a ship, it's best not to go to the bitter end.
Black market - In medieval England there were nomadic mercenaries who wandered the country side and would sell their services to the highest bidder. These were hardened fighters who lived solitary lives in the wilderness. They did not have the luxury of servants to polish their armour and it would oxidize to a blackish hue, and they came to be known as black knights. At local town festivals they would have exhibition jousting matches in which the winner of the fight would win the loser's weapons and armour. The local gentry, softened by the good life, would lose to these black knights. The nomadic knights didn't have much use for an extra set of armour and would sell it back to them immediately after the fight. The losing nobility would be forced to buy back their armour and this after market came to be known as the "Black Market.” Bombed - A bombard is a leather jug which holds 8 pints or 4 quarts. A full bombard of ale would make you drunk. Bonfire - The discarded "bones" from winter meals were piled outside and bonfires would be set to get rid of them.
Bucket shop - a dishonest brokerage firm; especially one that formerly failed to execute customers' margin orders in expectation of making a profit from market fluctuations adverse to the customers' interests. In the 1870s, a bucket shop was a lowly saloon that sold beer and other cheap hooch in buckets. How did the term make the jump from watering hole to Wall Street? No one is really sure. Some speculate that it may have been because of the small-time gambling that took place at the original bucket shops, while others claim it derives from the bucket elevator used to transport things between the Chicago Board of Trade and a market for small investors housed directly below it. By the 1880s, "bucket shop" was being used for pseudo "investment houses" where gamblers bid on the rise and fall of stock prices. These days the term is used for any business that sells cut-price goods, especially airline tickets.
Bum's rush - A short rush, which would burn for a short time, would be used when company came over rather late; when it burnt out, you would want to see the hind end of your guests out the door. Burning the candle at both ends - If they REALLY didn't want you to stay very long, they would light "both ends" at the same time! Bus - is a long passenger vehicle with a central aisle and seats along the sides. It can also be a cart for carrying dishes in a restaurant, a metal bar that distributes electricity to many different devices, or a group of electrical lines that carries data signals. Strangely, all these meanings are closely related. In France in 1828, a new kind of conveyance was invented. It was called a "voiture omnibus," where the first word was French for "carriage" and the second was Latin for "for all." The new kind of carriage caught on quickly in England, where it was simply called the omnibus. In a strange twist of linguistics, the name was shortened to bus, leaving only the suffix of the original Latin word without the root. Since a bus carried a collection of diverse people, the same word became applied to other things having to do with diverse collections, such as the cart for dishes and the electrical cables for power and data distribution.
"Clean your plate before you have dessert" - The square plate (above) was never washed either. After your daily dose of stew, you wiped your plate clean with a piece of bread. Then you flipped it over which provided a flat surface for your dessert portion (if there was any, that is). Clink -The name of the Bishop of Southwark’s prison which was on Clink Street in the Southwark area of London. Cold shoulder - When a guests would over stay their welcome as house guests, the hosts would (instead of feeding them good, warm meals) give their too-long staying guests the worst part of the animal, not warmed, but the COLD SHOULDER. Cut through the red tape - Solicitors kept their clients papers in a file folder tied with red ribbon to prevent the papers from falling out. Of course, when they wanted to get at the papers, they would have to cut through the red tape.
Davy Jones's locker - the bottom of the ocean. Was there a real Davy Jones? That's a question linguists have pondered since 18th-century sailors started using the name for the evil spirit of the sea or the deadly depths of the ocean. Some claim the original Davy Jones was a British pirate, but there's no evidence such a person actually existed. Others swear he was a London pub owner who kept drugged ale in a special locker, served it to the unwary, and then had them shanghaied to sea. But the theory considered most plausible is that the "Davy" in “Davy Jones's locker" was inspired by St. David, the patron saint of Wales, who was often invoked by Welsh sailors. The "Jones" is traced to Jonah, the biblical figure who was swallowed by a whale. Dead as a doornail -- "Knock, knock." That wasn't the beginning of a joke centuries ago, before we had doorbells that could play the theme from "The Godfather" or "Westminster Chimes" or even just plain ring. In those days you didn't push anything to announce yourself: you pounded. Doors back then were thick and visitors used a knocker to bang on a metal plate on the door to get attention. Doornails held this target in place. If you were popular and had a lot of callers--hopefully not all bill collectors - the doornails would take their share of abuse. Eventually they got pretty mashed, giving rise to the expression, "dead as a . . ."
Done to a turn - Meat was roasted until cooked on an upright spit which had to be turned by hand. “Dead man's hand" - Life insurance companies won't pay off if you engage in certain dangerous activities. In the Old West, if we can believe westerns, "a friendly game of poker," might have voided a policy. Disturbingly often, one or more players didn't leave the card table alive. On August 2, 1876, in the town of Deadwood, in the Dakota Territory, it was the legendary Wild Bill Hickock who cashed in his chips, shot in the back by a man named Jack McCall while playing poker in a saloon. Wild Bill slumped over holding a pair of aces and a pair of eights, forever after called a dead man's hand.
Doily - A small ornamental mat, usually of lace or linen, named after Doily or Doyly, an 18th century London draper. "Druthers" Your imagination would come up with more intriguing possibilities than the reality of the origins of the expression. It's simply the product of a regional speech mannerism, in which "I'd rather" gets contracted into "druther," and then becomes a noun by adding an "s." So if you had your druthers, you would have what you want, what you'd rather have. Eating humble pie - Servants ate "umble pie" which was made from deer waste while their Master and his guests had the better cuts of meat. Farming it out - The expression "farming out" - having someone else do part or all of your work - is connected to the place where you get up before dawn, work yourself to the bone, plant seeds, pray for rain, and then sometimes see your crops washed away when you get exactly what you asked for. But the connection is not that the expression came from the place, but rather that both come from the same source. In the Middle Ages, the word "farm" meant a tax or rent, not the land where you keep cows and pigs. The actual collection of the tax was subcontracted out to a person known as a tax farmer. Eventually the property for which the tax or rent was paid came to be called a farm. And farming something out came to mean subcontracting - assigning or paying someone to do our work for us.
Fuddy duddy -- A fuddy duddy is an old-fashioned person with fussy, hyper-critical ways. Example: "Professor Higgins is such a fuddy duddy, he won't even let his boys play in the yard on Saturdays." The origin of this phrase is uncertain. It seems to have first gotten started around 1900 in Maine, a place and time of puritanical, straight-laced attitudes. Some dictionaries suggest that the phrase is related to "fuddled," an old word meaning "drunk or confused," but that theory seems unlikely because a fuddy duddy is not the kind of person who is likely to get drunk. A more intriguing theory is that it emerged from the letters sometimes found after the names of clergymen, who were also professors, something fairly common in those days. Someone known as "James Witherspoon, Ph.D., D.D." might have been called "James Witherspoon, fuddy duddy" by those with little respect for his credentials.
Get out of bed on the wrong side - An old superstition said that it was bad luck to put the left foot down when getting out of bed. Getting your goat - This apparently refers to an old English (Welsh?) belief that keeping a goat in the barn would have a calming effect on the cows, hence producing more milk. When one wanted to antagonise/terrorise one's enemy, you would abscond with their goat rendering their milk cows less- to non-productive. Gone to pot - Time eventually wears everything down. For example, once great downtown department stores declined, went to pot and were replaced by suburban malls. If you've ever gone to a school reunion, you know how just a few years, a few pounds, and a few grey hairs can make old classmates look like they've gone to pot, too. But why the pot? Is something cooking? Whatever counter-culture references the phrase may bring to mind, it actually is about the kitchen. In the Middle Ages, table scraps ended up in a big pot for stew. Once the centrepiece of a big meal, main courses were demoted to leftovers. Eventually "going to pot", meaning going downhill, would be applied to anything, even the guy who sat behind you in the schoolroom years ago.
Goose bumps - When was the last time you used one of your small toes to accomplish anything? It's one of several physical traits that are holdovers from long ago. Another is our appendix, a vestigial organ that no longer does much at all, yet we still have it. Goose bumps fall into this same category. We humans used to be a lot hairier. In cold weather that hair stood up on end, providing us with a natural insulation by creating pockets of warmer air between our skin and the outside cold. Relatively hairless now, we can wear goose down parkas to keep warm. But we still get goose bumps because the follicles on our skin automatically pucker up in response to the cold, trying to raise the hair that is no longer there.
"Go to town" -- In the nineteenth century, most people lived in the country. They went to town to have fun, get some culture, maybe take care of business, go to church, socialise, or go shopping. It's what many of them did right after their once- a-week bath. So the expression "go to town" came to mean something special, done in a big way, with lots of enthusiasm and excitement, pulling out all the stops and sparing no expense. In spirit, "go to town" resembles another nineteenth century phrase: "Sunday best," the good clothes you saved for church and other special occasions - not the ordinary and everyday things you wore.
John Q. Public - 1) a member of the public or the community: person, citizen 2) the public or the community personified. When John Q. Public made his print debut in the late 1930s, he joined a long line of generic "Johns" in English. About 10 years earlier, "John Citizen" had started appearing in British texts as a nickname for the average Joe. Messrs. Public and Citizen are linguistic youngsters compared to "John Doe"; that term has been used for an anonymous or average man since the mid-1600s. Initially, such generic terms were predominantly male, but that changed with the arrival of "Jane Doe" in the 1930s. "Joan Citizen" debuted in the 1940s, but "Jane Q. Public" didn't find her way into English texts until the mid-1980s. By the way, some think the "Q" was inspired by John Quincy Adams.
Let the cat out of the bag – In the days before spaying there were many surplus cats who were drowned in a sack. If, on the other hand, the tiestring came loose, it was said to let the cat out of the bag. "Living the life of Riley" - Whoever this guy Riley is, the tax collector would probably like to know about his source of income. People attribute such a grand lifestyle to him that he must have done quite well for himself. In fact, no one has ever traced the expression to an actual person, and he or she probably never really existed. But we do know where the expression almost certainly originated. His name was originally O'Riley (or O'Reilly--the spelling varies) and he was given life in a song, "Are You the O'Riley?" made popular in the late 19th century by the great vaudeville performer, Pat Rooney. In the song, O'Riley is always looking to strike it rich and lead the good life. Today, of course, we are more realistic about the possibilities of getting rich quick and actually living the life of Riley.
Limelight [in the] - Limelight has nothing to do with citrus fruit, and it's not even green. Being in the limelight means the same thing as being in the spotlight. Limelight is what theatres used to light the stage with before modern lights were invented. It was called limelight because the source of the brightness was calcium oxide, the corrosive substance also known as lime. When burned, lime gave off an intense white light that fully exposed actors to the public gaze. So if you're in the limelight the spotlight is yours and all eyes are upon you. Losing face - see saving face. Mad as a hatter - If someone says you are mad as a hatter, they are accusing you of being quite irrational. The sense of madness here is "suffering from a disorder of the mind; insane." This phrase usually refers not to someone who is actually insane, but rather to a more normal person who is behaving in an irrational way. The phrase emerged in England in the 19th century. Hatmakers in those days used a lot of felt that was treated with chemicals including lead, arsenic, and mercury. Unfortunately, those chemicals are highly toxic. The symptoms of such poisoning include palsy, confused speech, and distorted thinking. Today, making hats is a much safer profession, but the phrase survives. An interesting alternate explanation of the phrase derives hatter from Anglo-Saxon atter (poison), which is related to adder (a poisonous snake whose bite was thought to cause insanity).
Mealy-mouthed -- To be mealy-mouthed is to speak in circles, to be unwilling to directly state facts or opinions. The phrase carries a strong sense of disapproval. The source of the phrase is actually more direct: a mealy-mouthed person is like someone whose mouth is full of meal (powdered grain), unable to speak clearly. There's a German expression, "Mehl im Maule behalten" (literally, to carry meal in one's mouth) that means "to speak indirectly." Our phrase most likely came from the German expression, or a similar one in another Germanic language. Mind your own beeswax - This came from the days when smallpox was a regular disfigurement. Fine ladies would fill in the pocks with beeswax. However when the weather was very warm the wax might melt. But it was not the thing to do for one lady to tell another that her makeup needed attention. Hence the sharp rebuke to "mind your own beeswax!"
Mind your P's and Q's - In English pubs, ale is ordered by pints and quarts. So in old England, when customers got unruly, the bartender would yell at them to mind their own pints and quarts and settle down. It's where we get the phrase "mind your P's and Q's." Not fit to hold a candle to - A menial household task was holding a candle for someone while they completed some type of activity. Some people were not held in much esteem; therefore they were "not fit to hold a candle to." "Old Glory" - This famous name was coined by Captain Stephen Driver, a shipmaster of Salem, Massachusetts, in 1831. As he was leaving on one of his many voyages aboard the Brig Charles Doggett - and this one would climax with the rescue of the mutineers of the Bounty - some friends presented him with a beautiful flag of twenty four stars. As the banner opened to the ocean breeze for the first time, he exclaimed "Old Glory!"
Patent leather - After the Patten shoe which the young women wore in the buttery. When the cream spilled on their shoes, the fat would tend to make the leather shiny. Peeping Tom - A person who gets pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others; a voyeur. After the legendary Peeping Tom of Coventry, England, who was the only person to see the Lady Godiva, an English noblewoman of the eleventh century riding naked as a means of persuading her husband, Leofric, Earl of Mercia, to lower taxes. Pig in a poke - Farmers would take their baby pigs to market in a sack (poke). Some unscrupulous ones would tie a large cat in the bag and try to sell it as a piglet sight unseen. Someone buying that way was said to buy a pig in a poke. Pitcher - A leather jug treated with tar pitch to help it hold its shape. Potter's field - It's a standard, heart-grabbing feature story that every newspaper and TV news program runs once in awhile: some poor soul has come to a sad end, dying alone with no relatives or friends to claim the body for a proper burial. At that point the local government steps in to bury the unknown person in a "potter's field." But nobody ever explains how this sad place came to have such a strange name. Its source is The New Testament, Matthew 27:7. After Judas betrayed Jesus he felt guilty and threw away his 30 pieces of silver. The Priests picked up the money in the Temple and spent it to buy land from the potter to provide burial plots for those who needed them. Eventually any municipal cemetery for unclaimed bodies came to be called a potter's field.
The real McCoy - How many times have you said this without ever stopping to think: Who was this guy, and what made him so real? Those who research such things have come up with two likely sources for the expression. One of them was a real person and the other... well, you'll see in a moment. Boxer Kid McCoy was the welterweight champion around 1900. But as comedian Rodney Dangerfield might say, McCoy "couldn't get no respect." His identity was sometimes questioned and to prove it, the Kid would sock the doubter until he acknowledged, "You're the real McCoy." But more likely, it started with "the clear McCoy" (or McKay), slang for good Scotch whiskey. During Prohibition, when cheap homemade hooch was passed off as real imported Scotch, the expression became "the real McCoy," meaning that the booze really did come off the boat.
Room & board - An apprentice would journey to another village to learn more about his craft (journeyman). There he would pay someone for his room, and food for his board. Round robin - A round robin is a sports tournament in which each contestant is matched with every other contestant. It's also a petition in which the signatures are arranged in a circle, like spokes of a wheel, in order to conceal the order of signing. A round robin has nothing to do with red-breasted birds. The name is probably based on the French ruban (ribbon). In the seventeenth century, French monarchs sometimes ordered the death of the first person who signed a petition that displeased the Crown. In order to disguise the order of signing, the names were written on an endless, circular ribbon, and no one could be identified as the instigator of the petition. Later, sailors in the British Navy modified the round robin, using the wheel spoke pattern to hide the order of signing. It was not until the late 1800s that "round robin" was applied to sports tournaments. Rub you the wrong way - It would be tempting to guess that this has something to do with genies and magic lamps. Rub the lamp the wrong way and maybe an angry genie makes you walk backwards for the rest of your life. But no, the source is much more humdrum. In fact, it's as dreary as housework and involves maids who were in a muddle about how to mop a floor. Several hundred years ago upper class housewives had servant problems. It seems that some of the hired help just didn't understand how to mop up after wet-rubbing a wooden floor. They mopped against the grain, rubbing it the wrong way and leaving streaks. This must have been truly traumatic because the expression gradually came to mean the way anything annoying affects us.
Rule of thumb – The phrase "rule of thumb" is derived from an old English law which stated that you couldn't beat your wife with anything wider than your thumb. Saving face or losing face - The noble ladies and gentlemen of the late 1700s wore much makeup to impress each other. Since they rarely bathed, the makeup would get thicker and thicker. If they sat too close to the heat of the fireplace, the makeup would start to melt. If that happened, a servant would move the screen in front of the fireplace to block the heat, so they wouldn't "lose face." Scuttlebutt - gossip. Say this word out loud a couple of times in succession and it will sound like total nonsense. That's because the words from which it comes have nothing to do with present day life. Scuttle and butt hearken back to the olden days of sailing ships. The butt was a cask of fresh drinking water - a very important object on any ship. The scuttle was the hatch or hole on the deck of the ship near which the butt was placed. Sailors coming over for a drink tended to linger for a moment, exchanging the "latest" with whoever else was drinking. What they said became known as scuttlebutt. Today at work we gossip around the water cooler.
Short end of the stick [Getting the] - Candles were expensive to make, so often reeds were dipped in tallow and burned instead. When visitors came, it was the custom for guests to make their exit by the time the lights went out. Therefore, if your host didn't want you to stay very long, he would give you a "short stick." Short shrift - This is one of those expressions that many of us often use and yet have no idea of what we're saying when we say it. It means to dispense with abruptly. That's what the phrase originally meant too, but what it actually referred to was graphic and grim. (Close your eyes if you're easily upset.) Shrift (or shrive, as in Shrove Tuesday when you made your confession before Lent) was old English for the giving of a penance at confession so people might absolve themselves of sin. To give short shrift referred to that process in its most extreme, dramatic, and condensed form: The brief confession a condemned prisoner at the block was allowed to make before being given the ultimate penance - by the axe man.
Six feet under - Until the bubonic plague swept Europe in the fourteenth century, bodies were buried at varying depths. During the Black Death, people became more aware of the need to bury their dead deep enough to insure that soil erosion didn't expose the remains and create a further health hazard. The specific depth of six feet came later from an English law, something of an early family preservation act in which the idea was to join husband and wife even after death. Six feet down allowed enough space for the coffin of one spouse, and eventually for the coffin of the other on top, and still left two feet of dirt on top of both. We've kept it at six feet for practicality: the depth is above the water table and hard rock, but not too deep for the grave diggers. Slapstick - Requiring little or no dialogue, physical comedy is one of the oldest forms of entertainment. The trademark of the style involves simulated acts of violence - a kick in the pants, a playful slap or a quick whack with a stick - all for the sake of a good laugh. The comedic effect is usually emphasized by sound effects. Gongs and drums accompany the actors blow-by-blow, heightening the experience. In the late 16th century, actors in the Italian "commedia dell'arte" carried flexible clubs that made a sharp cracking noise as the target was struck. The clubs became known as "slapsticks" and since then all forms of physical comedy--with or without sound effects--have carried the name.
Sleep tight - In Shakespeare's time, mattresses were secured on bed frames by ropes. When you pulled on the ropes the mattress tightened, making the bed firmer to sleep on. That's where the phrase, "goodnight, sleep tight" came from. Son of a gun - After sailors had crossed the Atlantic to the West Indies, they would take the native women on board the ship and have their way with them in between the cannons. Some of the women the sailors left behind would have boys, who were called sons between the guns. Spring cleaning - The layer of hay in the kitchen was finally hauled out of the house when the weather turned warm in the spring. Square meal [getting a] - Your dinner plate was a square piece of wood with a "bowl" carved out to hold your serving of the perpetual stew that was always cooking over the fire. The kettle was never actually emptied and cleaned out. New ingredients were simply added to the muck. You always took your "square" with you when you went travelling. Start the ball rolling - Anyone who looks at the English language, especially American English, can see that those who speak it think that life is a game. Even when you're not being athletic, it's good to "score a touchdown," "hit a home run," or "deliver a knockout blow." The British are also fond of playing field metaphors - they're the ones who "started the ball rolling." The sport was croquet, the leisurely pastime in which players use mallets to knock wooden balls through metal hoops stuck in the grass. Someone had to hit the ball first and start it rolling, and gradually the expression came to mean anyone who got things going.
Strike while the iron is hot - No, this has nothing to do with the iron you apply to a blouse or shirt. Nor is it connected to the golf club that's been giving you so many good shots lately. In fact, you would probably have to be more than a hundred years old to recall the everyday experience that gave rise to the expression. As late as the beginning of this century, the blacksmith was still an important person. He made horseshoes and small household items such as door hinges by heating iron till it was red-hot and then shaping it on an anvil with a hammer. The best results came from striking the iron while it was still hot. Eventually, the expression came to mean doing anything at the most opportune time. Stone cold - Slate floors were often cold enough during the winter months that any bare skin coming in contact with them would "stick". The slate floors were covered with a layer of hay to provide some warmth. The kitchen was the only room kept heated during the winter. All of the family spent the day cooped up in this one room (often 10 kids or more)... also the family cats and dogs who served important functions of "mousing," "garbage disposal," and etc. Tanked [getting] - When you drank too much out of the above "tankard" you were said to be "tanked" ... if you got so "tanked" that you passed out, there was a chance that somebody might think you had actually died. Since back then they didn't have experience with taking pulses, they often buried people alive who were actually in a drunken stupor or otherwise comatose. Teetotaller - A teetotaller is a person who abstains completely from all alcoholic drinks. Such a person practices teetotalism, and is a teetotal person. Is a teetotaler someone who "totally drinks tea?" Actually, the original root form had nothing to do with drinking. As far back as the early 1800s, "tee-totally" was an emphatic form of "totally." This use shows the true origin of the teetotal family as a result of reduplication, a lexical phenomenon where the initial letter of a word is repeated for emphasis. Most sources agree that the first application of "teetotal" to drinking was in a speech by Richard Turner, a member of the British Temperance Society, in 1833, in which he urged everyone to abstain tee-totally from all forms of alcohol.
Tie the knot - Tying the knot of the ropes in the marriage bed...or ... The priest performing the wedding would bind the bride and grooms hands with rope during the ceremony. In modern day, you will often see the priest place a sash around their hands rather than rope, and it is from this that the saying comes. Although the practice is not as common as it was, depending on your denomination it is still done. Tumbler & tipsy - Glasses were hand blown, thus flat bottomed glasses were difficult to produce. Those with curved bottoms would tend to tumble over when placed on the table, and too many tumblers of whiskey would make you a little bit tipsy. Turn the tables - Tables only had one finished side. The other side, less expensive to make, was rougher. When the family was alone, they ate on the rough side to keep the good side nice for company. When company came, the whole top lifted off and was turned to its good side. Wet your whistle - Many years ago in England, pub regulars had a whistle baked into the rim or handle of their ceramic cups. When they needed a refill, they used the whistle to get some service. Hence, "Wet your whistle."
Whole 9 yards - The term "the whole 9 yards" came from WWII fighter pilots in the Pacific. When arming their airplanes on the ground, the .50 calibre machine gun ammo belts measured exactly 27 feet, before being loaded into the fuselage. If the pilots fired all their ammo at a target, it got "the whole 9 yards." “Your name is mud” originated from Dr. Mudd's swearing in at Richard Lawrence's trial when his lawyer said “Your name is Mudd?”. (Lawerence attempted to assassinate President Jackson. When he failed he ran into a warehouse which the Doctor was in).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)