The Blaisdell Blog

The selection of January 1 as the first day of each New Year is a purely human contrivance.   It is not related to any natural marker.   The collective “we” of the human population simply fixed January 1 as the date.   Five decades before the birth of Christ, the Julian calendar (created by and for Julius Caesar) set January 1 as the start of a new year.   The first day of January (named for the Roman god Janus) was the date that Rome’s two consuls assumed their yearlong offices.   These were the two most important elected officials in the Republic; the term of their reign was significant.          But for all of the depth, breadth and political sway of the Roman Empire, the Julian calendar was not universally adopted.   During the Medieval Period, the Catholic Church viewed the January 1 celebration as a pagan festival and eventually set the New Year on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25 th .          It was not until 1570, when Pope Gregory XIII replaced the Julian with th

E very year there are loud and sometimes rancorous debates about how we should make the Christmas season politically correct for a massive and diverse population.   For some people the best way to include everyone is to exclude the Christians for which the holiday was named.   This naïve and egocentric look at the holidays shows a failure to understand the core lesson of tolerance.   Tolerance is a double edged sword.   When you protect a citizen’s right to diversity you also, by definition, place the same burden of tolerance upon them.   That which is given must also be returned, else you lose all.    It is this requisite largess which is truly the sharper edge of the sword. At its best, Christmas has a positive message of hope, generosity, love and gratitude.   As a believer, Christmas is my time to look forward to the awesome and wonderful gift to come on Easter morning.   If you don’t see it as that, then enjoy the season for the best virtues that it holds.   Enjoy the music, t

I am a history geek and the American Presidency is my default position.   I have read almost two dozen Presidential biographies and I am not going to die until I have covered all of them.   Some Presidents have been remarkable to the point of awesome in their skill and/or character (like Lincoln and Washington).   Some have surprised me by the goodness of their person, even if their intelligence, or skill set did not measure up to the intense demands of the office they held (like Grant and Cleveland).   I have occasionally been surprised by a poor President who, working against type, rose as far as he could to the stature of the office simply because he thought higher of the office than his life had otherwise demonstrated (like Chester A. Arthur).        But there is one area in which all Presidents have shown themselves to be in perfect synchronizations with the rest of us.    What is that one sweet spot where men of note join men in general?   The answer is romantic love.    

It seems there is a “celebrity” named Josh Brolin who has seriously sunburned his nether regions.   He did so inadvertently (not to mention unthinkingly) while taking part in a practice called perineum sunning.   Now there are several things here that need explaining, and one that escapes explanation entirely.        First, there is the question of Mr. Brolin, himself.   When I first heard of this incident Brolin was simply described as a celebrity.   This loosely defined word, which can refer to well-known talent, fame, media association or simple luck, covers a wide swath.   My husband is sure that Brolin is an actor; I’m betting on an athlete.   In any event the unfolding story convinces me that while this man’s bank account may be in seven digits, his I.Q. is certainly in two.   Celebrity may not preclude intelligence, but it does not seem to require it, either.        Second, there is the perineum.   Or, rather, where is the perineum?   Let’s just say that to sunburn one’s