Senior Women Web

Blog

  • Ellsworth Kelly’s Botanical Art: Corn On the Roof, Hyacinth, Seaweed and Wild Grape Leaves

    sunflowers, teasel,corn

    ©Ellsworth Kelly, Watercolors: (from left) Sunflower (1957), Teasel (1949), Corn (1959)

    by Val Castronovo

    Traditionally associated with bright, color-saturated abstract paintings, American artist Ellsworth Kelly spent 60 years working in a parallel universe, making figurative drawings.  He sketched plants, flowers and leaves in graphite and ink, and more than 75 of these lesser-known, mostly monochromatic works are now on view at The Metropolitan Museum of Art until September 3. 
     
    Curators are billing the show as the first major museum retrospective exclusively devoted to Kelly’s plant drawings.  (Centre Pompidou in Paris showcased his botanicals alongside those of Henri Matisse in 2002, and there was a roomful of them exhibited at The Met in 1970 in New York Painting and Sculpture: 1940-1970.) 
     
    Kelly sketched his first botanical, a pencil drawing of ailanthus, in Boston in 1948.  He was studying at the School of the Museum of Fine Arts, where he spent a year and a half drawing nudes and honing his skill.  He credits his teacher, Ture Bengtz, with teaching him how to see, and therefore, how to draw.
     
    He subsequently went to Paris, where he continued the pursuit.  He relishes the story of hitting up the flower market in the winter of 1948-49 and bringing blossoms back to dreary hotel rooms to remind him of spring.  One flower that he bought, the hyacinth, is a particular favorite — inspired by Matisse’s drawings, he made six sketches of the hyacinth, one of which is on display at The Met.
     
    The plant drawings could not be more different than Kelly’s abstract panels.  They are, for the most part, faint, delicate depictions of organic forms; all but a dozen are devoid of color.  But they are memory markers, reminders of a particular time and a particular place — the studio at Coenties Slip in Lower Manhattan where Kelly grew corn on the roof and sketched seaweed, and the road in eastern Long Island near a summer home where he spent days sketching wild grape leaves.
     
    As he explains to curator Marla Prather in an audio introduction to the show:  “I have a theory that when an artist draws, … he puts his mind to sleep in most ways, except what you’re doing. And it’s hitting the brain, and connecting a little part of your brain. So that when you look at that drawing … I believe you go back there.  It’s like drawings are memories.”
     
    The botanicals, “portraits” in his words, are simple, elegant distillations of all manner of vegetation — sweet peas, sunflowers, ginkgo, water lilies, calla lilies, beanstalks, corn stalks, banana leaves, coral leaves, wild hibiscus, grass.  The emphasis is on contour drawing.  In these minimalist masterpieces, without shading, the line is the thing.
     
    As he told Ms. Prather in a May interview, “In my drawing, I prefer the line to be the means of expression and color can distract from the line …I like the immediacy of the various mark-making when drawing with pencil and ink — marks that don’t exist in my abstract painting and sculpture.”
     
    And in a further elaboration, he says:  “I want to achieve: … a good drawing in the composition and the relation of line over line. Lines within lines. I think that all my later paintings… — and sculptures too — come from drawing. And drawing is the basis and the start of my art.”
     
    Kelly is 89 years old. He attended the show’s glittery opening in June, pulling an oxygen tank behind him.  But the flora in this grandiose yet quiet exhibit would seem to provide oxygenation enough.
     
     

  • Suddenly Homeless

    by Rose Madeline Mula

    Poor me!  I had — actually am still having — a very traumatic experience.  Not that I’m complaining.  Well, maybe just a little.   I know, I know. Into each life some rain must fall, but must it fall inside my home?

    Yes, that’s what I said. The Money Pit

     A few weeks ago, around 4:00 AM, I was awakened by what sounded like the pitter-patter of a gentle rain against my windows.  I wish.  Instead, it was the dripping of toilet water (and I’m not talking cologne here) from a broken commode in the condo above mine.  The unit had been empty and on the market — and unattended — for months, its owner having moved to Florida.  When the firemen arrived, in response to my 911 call, they found the offending toilet gushing like Old Faithful, and its output raining through the ceilings of all my rooms.

    Since I moved here, my neighbor across the hall, a very private person I’ll call John, has been my go-to computer tech support guy,  my TV programmer, my diagnoser of  car problems, my frequent provider of delicious meals,  my broken chair fixer, my advocate in settling billing disputes … in short, my guardian angel.  But he’s no longer that because I’ve now elevated him to sainthood.  As during previous predicaments, he was on the spot again for this calamity — racing to shove pots, pans and towels under every drip … furniture to leak-free sections of the rooms … moving my computer, desk and TVs out of danger and into his condo … contacting my insurance company … calling a disaster cleaning company to deal with the mess … 

    The demolition crew arrived almost immediately, moved my furniture into a temporary storage pod, then started mercilessly ripping up floors and tearing down ceilings and walls, releasing trapped water before mold had a chance to establish a beachhead.

    Unfortunately, that day was the only time they arrived promptly.  The next few days were a nightmare.  When they didn’t show up as promised (which was every day), I’d try to phone the smooth-talking company owner, and invariably I’d hear “The mailbox for this number is full and cannot take messages.  Please try your call later.”  When he finally did answer a call, it was only to tell me that they were in a terrible traffic gridlock.  “But it’s clearing up.  We’ll be there in twenty minutes.”  

    I was skeptical.  I’d heard his same spiel the day before.  “I may be old, but I’m not senile,” I said.  “If you’re going to be here in an hour … two hours … tell me the truth.” “Oh, no,” he protested.  “Twenty minutes.” They arrived three hours later.  I confronted Mr.  Smooth.  “I listened to the traffic reports,” I said.  “There was no three-hour tie-up.” “Oh, no, it wasn’t that,” he said with such sincerity, I almost believed him, “We got a flat tire …” Obviously they were juggling three or more jobs at once.

    And so it went, day after agonizingly slow day, until Mr.  Smooth declared their work was finished and he’d return the following day to pick up several bags of trash he had left on my balcony. It turns out the demolition was far from complete, the trash is still on my balcony, and I haven’t heard from him since — maybe because the owners of two other units which also suffered damage and used his so-called “services” have filed complaints against him, and a victim in another part of the state has the police looking for him.

    So much for the bad news (well, at least for now).  The good news this is that I have a great, highly-recommended contractor ready to begin restoring my home to its former glory.  Ooops!  Here comes more bad news:  The contractor can’t start until the insurance companies get their acts together and give him the go-ahead, but they’re so tangled in red tape, I have no idea when that will be.

    Meanwhile, my neighbor, Saint John, insisted on moving me into his guest room, even though my insurance would cover my staying in a hotel for the duration.  No, no!  It’s not what you’re thinking.  John is fifty years younger than me. (Somehow that sounds less depressing than saying I’m fifty years older.)  He simply felt I’d be more comfortable in his home where I would have a bedroom and private bath, a kitchen, living room, laundry facilities, and the company of his sweet dog (whom I’ll call “Dog” to preserve his, as well as his master’s, anonymity).  Also, I’d be close enough to my condo to monitor its demolition and eventual renovation. 

    It’s been over three weeks since I moved in, and John continues to be an incredibly hospitable host — though, inevitably, some small disputes have developed.  I nag him about letting dirty dishes pile up in the sink, instead of putting them in the dishwasher as he uses them; and, though I, of course, am perfect, he also has found things to nag me about — like putting his mugs away on the shelf with the handles not precisely aligned.  He likes to keep his AC set at SA (Sub Arctic), while I prefer not to have icicles form in my nostrils.  We also don’t share the same style sense.  I brought home a new blouse yesterday to replace one of the dozens that were water damaged.  “Do you really like that?” asked John.  “No,” I said.  “I hate it.  I bought it because I don’t have enough aggravation in my life right now.”

    Though we’ve been friends for over five years, we never fully recognized each other’s quirks until this experience. So even though our grandma-grandson relationship is strictly platonic, it presents a good argument for couples to get to know each other by living together before committing to marriage.

    As for John and me, I know we will be even stronger friends when I’m finally able to move out, because he is truly a saint.  He’d have to be to put me up — and put up with me — for this long (and who knows how much longer!), especially with my uncharacteristic black moods of despondence because of the delays in reconstructing my condo and my fear that at my age all the stress will kill me before I have a chance to move back in. It’s true. I’ve developed many alarming symptoms, but I won’t describe them to you. It’s bad enough that my doctor thinks I’m a hypochondriac.  Even Dog, who has been very sympathetic up to now, is getting tired of listening to me.

    I leave you with this wish:

    May God grant you a Saint John to ease every woe;
    May good luck follow wherever you go;
    And may your neighbors’ toilets never overflow.

     ©2012 Rose Madeline Mula for SeniorWomen.com. Rose’s newest book, The Beautiful People and Other Aggravations, can be ordered through through Amazon.com and other online bookstores, and at Pelican Publishing (800-843-1724), as is her previous book,  If These Are Laugh Lines, I’m Having Way Too Much Fun. 

  • Elaine Soloway’s Caregiving Series: Food and Music – A Perfect Match

    I’m not sure when he noticed me. Perhaps when I was opening Tommy’s tiny catsup pouch with my teeth. Or, when I put my hand on my husband’s, and said, “slow,” reminding him to chew one mouthful before taking another.

    The stranger waited until we finished our lunch and Tommy was heading for the door before he stopped me and said, “I hope my wife takes such good care of me when I need it.” I preened and thanked him.

    This monitoring of my husband’s meals is a new task in my caregiving routine. His Primary progressive aphasia affects speech and can also impact swallowing. So, our mealtimes together have taken on a new watchful ambiance.

    As Tommy and I left the restaurant to walk, arm-in-arm, I thought about our very first meal together. Vigilance was absent back then. Our first date was at a Mexican restaurant that was near Tommy’s apartment and my townhouse.

    As we dipped corn chips into salsa, we revealed our favorite things. We were like game show contestants hoping to find correct answers. We matched on Masterpiece Theatre, jazz vocalists, dogs and cats, and quiet nights at home. When we moved on from chips and salsa to tacos and burritos, our lists became more specific. And when we learned we had the very same favorite song, It Never Entered My Mind by Rodgers and Hart, we felt we had won first prize.

    At my door after the meal, we exchanged a goodnight kiss, neighborly, but with promise. Tommy said he’d call. I was certain he would.

    The very next evening, instead of that phone call, he knocked on my door. “I have a present for you,” he said.

    We sat on the couch as I unwrapped a Johnny Hartman CD that included It Never Entered My Mind.

    “When, how?” I asked. I was touched.

    “I took the El downtown and bought it at a music store,” he said. “Do you like it?” 

    We played it then, and again at our wedding two years later when my daughters walked me down the aisle in a Las Vegas ceremony.

     While music has continued to be part of our lives, our meals have changed. Early on, we’d go to dinner once a week with friends. We’d argue over politics, discuss news headlines, catch each other up on far-flung children and grandchildren. When Tommy could still get a few words out, our dinner companions would try to keep him in the conversation. If necessary, I’d step in to translate.

     Eventually, though, my husband could not speak at all. Our dinners out diminished because it became too painful for me to see him silent, on the sidelines. The invitations still came, but I accepted less and less, except for special occasions.

  • “I should have married her when I had the chance.” Sex Differences in Relationship Regret

    Editor’s Note: We have included a number of paragraphs from the study, Sex Differences in Relationship Regret: The Role of Perceived Mate. God Speed!

    Abstract: The current set of studies examined regret involving action and inaction in the realm of romantic relationships by testing whether such regret is associated with the
    characteristics of one’s mate. In study 1, 394 participants reported on a previous casual
    sexual encounter, and in study 2, 358 participants reported on a previous romantic
    relationship. In both, instances of actual engagement and instances of passing up
    opportunities were studied. Study 3 was experimental and elicited reactions to hypothetical scenarios from 201 participants. Regret reported by men in both study 1 and study 2 varied as a function of the perceived attractiveness of the participants’ actual and potential mate.  Regret reported by women in study 2 varied as a function of the perceived stinginess of the participant’s mate and perceived wealth of the participants’ potential mate. Study 3 found that sex differences in type of regret (with men regretting inaction more than women) occurred only when the mate presented in the scenario was described in ways consistent with mate preferences. Together these findings suggest that regret differs between the sexes in ways consistent with sex differences in mate preferences.

    Introduction: 

    “I should have married her when I had the chance.” “I shouldn’t have eaten that
    entire pie.” “If only I had not gotten into that car on that fateful day.” Sentiments such as
    these reflect an emotion that is known to most of us. Regret is an unpleasant emotion commonly felt when we experience some unfortunate outcome that we believe would have been different had we taken a different course of action.

    Discussion: The primary purpose of the study was to test for sex differences in the mate qualities that predict regret. Consistent with expectations, mate attractiveness accounted for a significant amount of variance in regret among men for both sexual encounters and romantic relationships. This held true for both action and inaction regrets. Thus, the more attractive the woman, the less regret our male participants reported over having engaged romantically or sexually with her and the more regret they reported over having missed out on an opportunity to have engaged romantically or sexually. Notably, mate attractiveness was the only trait that significantly and consistently predicted regret among men in all four types of romantic/sexual scenarios. In contrast, mate attractiveness did not significantly predict regret among our female participants for any of the four types of romantic/sexual scenarios.

    The pattern of findings for our female participants was only moderately consistent
    with predictions. Our predictions for women largely held up in the romantic relationship
    survey. Among our female participants only, mate wealth (in missed relationship
    opportunities and, to a marginal extent, in relationships) and mate stinginess (in
    relationships) was related to regret. Contrary to expectations, stinginess was not associated with regret among women in the inaction context. Perhaps stinginess is hard to assess outside of an actual relationship.

    Painting: Edmund Leighton’s God Speed!, 1900. Art Renewal Center Museum, Wikipedia 

  • Maeve Binchy, Queen of the Bookshelves … and Friend

    by Jane Shortall

    I saw the film Tara Road in the Savoy cinema, Dublin. In front of me sat a group of elderly ladies. When the nasty Danny began to come on to Marilyn, played by the beautiful Andie MacDowell, the ladies decided to give her some advice and yelled up at the screen, “Don’t even look at him, love, he’s already ruined two women!” and “Leave her alone, you little snake!” 

    They clapped and cheered loudly when Brenda Fricker’s character Mona turned out to be something of a moneybags, the woman who held all the cards. As the men got their just desserts, we were treated to shouts of “That’s it, you tell them Mona!” When the credits rolled, they continued to say, as if talking to a friend, “Good girl, Maeve, never let the baddies win …” 

    When I got back to France, I wrote to Maeve about the hilarious afternoon in the cinema and the ladies reaction to the film. A week later I got an e-mail from a close friend of Maeve’s,  Mary Sheerin, telling me that her phone had rung and Maeve’s voice said briskly, “Now sit down and listen to this;  I’ve got a most entertaining letter from Jane, who went off to live in the Pyrénées …” 

    Maeve Binchy, her books chosen by Oprah, made into movies, somehow managed to remain one of us, to stay absolutely the same warm, giving, human being. Beyond generous, she gave away both time and money as if she had double the amount to spare. I once sent her a card, complete with stamped addressed envelope, and asked her to please sign it, then post it to St Vincent’s hospital, where a close friend of mine was due for some serious surgery. When I visited the very next day, the card, with a marvellous uplifting get-well message in Maeve’s huge writing, was sitting on the bedside table. Had she sent it by taxi? I never found out.

    Queen of the bookshelves, very few Irish novelists of Maeve’s generation had studio executives flying in from Los Angeles to Dublin to discuss their writing being made into movies, their characters played by international stars. 

    Ireland’s most successful and best loved novelist, whose sudden death leaves all of us shocked, was literally a towering presence in the writing world. An extremely tall woman, definitely on the heavy side, Maeve was, in every sense, larger than life, with a superior imagination and an uncanny ability to tell a story. 

    Someone who could overhear a snatch of conversation in the morning, Maeve could produce a short story before lunchtime based on a single remark. One of her big, fat, successful novels, Silver Wedding, came from overhearing two girls on a Dublin bus, talking about their parents’ upcoming wedding anniversary. 

    When I moved to France, she continued to encourage my writing career, sending me inspiring, wonderfully bossy notes, telling me to “Sit down every day and keep at it.” And perhaps her most famous one liner, “Don’t get it right, get it written!”

    Maeve was a fantastic journalist and her newspaper columns had a massive following. But in her early days, she admits to having no knowledge of cooking and knowing nothing whatever about fashion when she was suddenly asked to become editor of a new ‘woman’s page’.

  • Canadian Exceptionalism: Optimism About Immigration

    We have heard the term ‘exceptionalism’ applied numerous times during this US election cycle. The Migration Institute was commissioned by the *Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute,  to produce this report about Canada’s immigration policy and polled public sentiments. We have selected a part of the Introduction:Peace arch between US and Canada

    Introduction
    In many transatlantic countries we find evidence of significant anti-immigrant sentiment and opposition to multicultural policies directed at immigrants and settled minority groups. Whether among the general public, as measured in opinion polls and votes for far-right parties, or articulated by elected leaders and other elites, such views are found across the political spectrum in Europe and the United States.

    Against this backdrop, Canada is a striking outlier. Compared to the citizens of other developed immigrant-receiving countries, Canadians are by far the most open to and optimistic about immigration.  In one comparative poll, only 27 percent of those surveyed in Canada agreed that immigration represented more of a problem than an opportunity. In the country that came closest to Canadian opinion, France, the perception of immigration as a problem was significantly higher, at 42 percent. The most widespread objections came from the United Kingdom, where 65 percent of people surveyed saw immigration as more of a problem than an opportunity.

    As striking, Canadian public opinion has been supportive of immigration for a long time and support has been increasing over recent decades, a time of economic uncertainty and concerns over foreign terrorists. Asked whether they favor decreasing, increasing, or keeping immigration levels the same, a stable plurality of Canadian respondents, about 45 percent, have favored the status quo between 1975 and 2005.

    Significantly, the number who wanted to reduce immigration, 43 percent in 1975, declined over this period while the number favoring more immigration went up. By 2005 roughly equal fifths of respondents held these two positions.

    Another series of polls, asking slightly different questions, indicate that since 2005, the number of Canadians who feel that there are too many immigrants entering Canada has continued to decline. A significant majority of Canadians surveyed, about two-thirds, said that the number of immigrants coming to Canada was “about right” in 2010.

    These attitudes have no correlation to the underlying proportion of immigrants in the general population, or even the public perception of that proportion. Increasing support for immigration has occurred as Canada has admitted more and more new immigrants. Among transatlantic countries surveyed in 2010, Canada had by far the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, about 20 percent of the population; by comparison, immigrants were only 11 percent of the population in the United Kingdom.

    Canadian optimism about immigration thus exists in a context of high mass migration, with the foreign born making up a far greater proportion of the population in Canada than in countries such as the United States, France, Germany, and Italy.

    Canadian exceptionalism is also evident when we consider the competition among Canadian jurisdictions for more immigrants. Not only is the federal government bullish about migration — and has been for quite a while — but every Canadian province and two territories have struck agreements with the federal government so that they can select migrants directly into their jurisdictions through the provincial nominee program.

    In 2010, 36,428 new permanent immigrants gained entry through provincial nomination, representing 13 percent of all new permanent residents in Canada.

    In comparison, subnational jurisdictions in other federal states — in the United States and in Germany, for example — exhibit significant differences in their reactions to immigration, as evident in subnational legislatures’ efforts to discourage or encourage migrants’ settlement. In Canada such regional variation is modest.

    Asked in a 2010 poll whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that immigration is “a key positive feature of Canada as a country,” 67.2 percent of respondents — the highest level of support — agreed that immigration is positive in the province of British Columbia; this percentage only dropped to 63.3 in the Praries, the provinces with the lowest level of support.

    Read the whole report, Understanding ‘Canadian Exceptionalism’ in Immigration and Pluralism Policy (PDF) at the Migration Policy Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan, independent think tank. 

    *The Council’s work is supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Open Society Foundations, Bertelsmann Stiftung, the Barrow Cadbury Trust (UK Policy Partner), the Luso-American Development Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

    Photograph from Wikipedia; The Peace Arch at the border between Surrey, British Columbia, and Blaine, Washington

  • Notice to Employers: Mothers Are More Engaged At Work Than Fathers, Research Shows

     Manhattan Project Workers

     

     

    by Erin Cech*

    Popular beliefs about work-family issues characterize working moms as having a divided focus on home and work — they are therefore seen as less competent, less committed, and, as a result, less worthy of employment and promotion than men or childless women.

    Sociologist Julie Kmec** sought to discover if working moms indeed show less “ideal” work attitudes and practices. Her research on US workers found quite the contrary: women with children are, on average, more engaged at work than fathers. Likewise, she found mothers have equal levels of work commitment, intensity, and motivation than other workers. Kmec’s study busts open cultural myths about mothers’ dedication to their work and refocuses the conversation on the need to revise workplace policies that push mothers into “mommy tracks.” She contends we need to ban differential treatment along the lines of childcare responsibilities.

    Are mothers secondary earners and therefore, secondary employees?

    The stereotypes about working mothers often assume that mothers are simply secondary earners and have breadwinning spouses. In fact, 10 million households are headed by single mothers, while only 6 million have a breadwinning husband and a non-working wife. In the current public discourse about gender workplace inequality and wage gaps, most sides share the assumption that, because of childcare responsibilities, working mothers’ work effort, commitment, and motivation suffer. Mothers, in other words, simply can’t live up to the modern expectations of the “ideal worker” — one who is deeply committed to their work and has few distractions or conflicting commitments from home.

    These stereotypes have real-world consequences for working mothers. Burgeoning research in the social sciences from the last decade has found that mothers — even those who work full-time — face significant penalties in the workforce. Research by sociologist Shelley Correll and others has shown that, compared to equally-qualified men and women without children, mothers are less likely to be interviewed, hired or promoted and they are evaluated less positively and paid less. While many people recognize these inequalities, the common response is that mothers deserve these rewards less than other workers because their family responsibilities render them less dedicated and less engaged with their work.

    Pro-work behavior and attitudes

    Kmec’s research is the first study to actually investigate the pro-work behaviors of mothers, compared to fathers and non-parents of both genders. She conducted a study of more than 2,000 full-time workers using the latest National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States, a nationally-representative sample of all US workers. Her analysis takes many relevant factors into account that shape pro-work behaviors: workers’ occupation, education level, number of hours worked per week, number of children, and type of organization.

    Photograph:  Control panels and operators for calutrons at the Y-12 Plant,  the Manhattan Project,  circa 1943 – 45,  Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Gladys Owens, the woman seated at right closest to the camera, was unaware of the purpose and consequence of her work until seeing the photo of herself while taking a public tour of the facility nearly 60 years later. Photographer Ed Westcott / US Army / Manhattan Engineering District. Wikimedia Commons

  • Your Mobile Phone: Reassessing Radio Frequency Exposure

    using a cellphone against headWhat GAO Found

    Scientific research to date has not demonstrated adverse human health effects of exposure to radio-frequency (RF) energy from mobile phone use, but research is ongoing that may increase understanding of any possible effects. In addition, officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as experts GAO interviewed have reached similar conclusions about the scientific research.

    Ongoing research examining the health effects of RF energy exposure is funded and supported by federal agencies, international organizations, and the mobile phone industry. NIH is the only federal agency GAO interviewed directly funding studies in this area, but other agencies support research under way by collaborating with NIH or other organizations to conduct studies and identify areas for additional research.

    The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) RF energy exposure limit may not reflect the latest research, and testing requirements may not identify maximum exposure in all possible usage conditions. FCC set an RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones in 1996, based on recommendations from federal health and safety agencies and international organizations.

    These international organizations have updated their exposure limit recommendation in recent years, based on new research, and this new limit has been widely adopted by other countries, including countries in the European Union. This new recommended limit could allow for more RF energy exposure, but actual exposure depends on a number of factors including how the phone is held during use. FCC has not adopted the new recommended limit. The Office of Management and Budget’s instructions to federal agencies require the adoption of consensus standards when possible.

    FCC told GAO that it relies on the guidance of federal health and safety agencies when determining the RF energy exposure limit, and to date, none of these agencies have advised FCC to change the limit. However, FCC has not formally asked these agencies for a reassessment. By not formally reassessing its current limit, FCC cannot ensure it is using a limit that reflects the latest research on RF energy exposure. FCC has also not reassessed its testing requirements to ensure that they identify the maximum RF energy exposure a user could experience. Some consumers may use mobile phones against the body, which FCC does not currently test, and could result in RF energy exposure higher than the FCC limit.

    Federal agencies and the mobile phone industry provide information on the health effects of mobile phone use and related issues to the public through their websites and mobile phone manuals. The types of information provided via federal agencies’ websites on mobile phone health effects and related issues vary, in part because of the agencies’ different missions, although agencies provide a broadly consistent message. Members of the mobile phone industry voluntarily provide information on their websites and in mobile-phone user manuals. There are no federal requirements that manufacturers provide information to consumers about the health effects of mobile phone use.

    Why GAO Did This Study

    The rapid adoption of mobile phones has occurred amidst controversy over whether the technology poses a risk to human health as a result of long-term exposure to RF energy from mobile phone use. FCC and FDA share regulatory responsibilities for mobile phones. GAO was asked to examine several issues related to mobile phone health effects and regulation. Specifically, this report addresses (1) what is known about the health effects of RF energy from mobile phones and what are current research activities, (2) how FCC set the RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones, and (3) federal agency and industry actions to inform the public about health issues related to mobile phones, among other things.

    Photo: Wikimedia Commons

  • Just Us

     
    Hey Bob! Look who has come visiting.  So many friends and family members . . . and they’ve come to celebrate your active and joyful life and remember their special moments with you.

    But first, I want to remember with you, those days when, before all these folks came into our lives and it was — just us.  You remember . . . we were students at Columbia University in New York City.  One  day in early fall we met casually and took a table in the cafeteria of International House to have coffee and a cigarette and to watch Fidel Castro give a lengthy television speech at the United Nations.  We talked and talked, not paying much attention to the speech, and when it was over, we left as a couple.

    We didn’t know it at the time, but from that day on, our friendship would deepen.  We went to the Gateway Bar on Broadway with Tony and Margy and called ourselves the Gateway Four, we socialized with Malind, Lila and Rohit from India, and Hiro from Japan; we sat in a car along the river and watched the signs blinking along the New Jersey skyline and on the George Washington Bridge. We drove to my parents’ house through a snow storm with no windshield wipers, we went to Broadway shows and sat in the last row so high up we could barely see the stage. It didn’t matter.

    When I finished my courses, we told our parents that we were going to get married.  And when they began to plan elaborate wedding ceremonies, we — just us — and Tony and Margy — went to Paterson, New Jersey and were married by Judge Alfano.  Oh my!  That didn’t go over so well with the in-laws, did it?  So we left town in that French Peugeot of which you were so proud. Remember that car? We drove cross-country to Berkeley, California with our belongings on the roof. We found an apartment that had a view of the Oakland Bay Bridge and I taught in Oakland and you opened a real estate office in Hayward. I came to love California but was so homesick for the East Coast.

    So when Washington called you to the New Frontier of John F. Kennedy, we moved East and brought along our first family member, our aloof but animated gray kitty. We settled first in Virginia and then in Maryland to accommodate your reentrance into the real estate world. Politics and government service were always on your mind, but we needed money to live and knew that we would shortly have a family to support.

    And we did. Over the years, we were surrounded by our growing family of three children, our spirited dogs, big and little, and two grandchildren.  Yet we never stopped being Bob and Adrienne, just the two of us — as we were on your last day, alone in the house together, when your body failed you, but left me your spirit. We celebrated together 50 years and I am now the guardian of our special memories. 

    Others may know you, but not like I do when it was  just us . . .  the two of us . . . together. 

    Eulogy for my husband
    Joel Robert Cannon
    January 14, 1935 – May 2, 2012
     
    Painting:  Chez Mouquin, 1905, William J. Glackens. Oil on canvas, Art Institute of Chicago. Wikimedia Commons

  • Gauguin, Cézanne, Matisse: Visions of Arcadia

    Editor’s Note: If you can’t attend this exhibition, consider wandering through the Museum’s collections. We did just that, finding their Object of the Day a launching point for exploring the ever-appealing work of Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. We then clicked on the the label This Artist/Maker which led us to 20 additional examples of his work.  At the Moulin Rouge: The Dance

    At the Moulin Rouge: The Dance; 1890. Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, French, 1864 – 1901. Oil on canvas, The Henry P. McIlhenny Collection in memory of Frances P. McIlhenny, 1986 

    The dream of Arcadia, a mythic place of beauty and repose where humankind lives in harmony with nature, has held an enduring appeal for artists since antiquity. With its promise of calm, simplicity, and order, it has served as both an inspiration — the sought for, but never fulfilled ideal of a paradise here on earth — and as an image of refuge, a place that is distant and seemingly protected from the vicissitudes of life. 

    In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time of sweeping and often disruptive social, technological, and intellectual change, this dream found a powerful new currency and once again spurred the imagination of a new generation of painters — many of whom played key roles in the development of modern art.

    At the heart of this new exhibition organized by the Philadelphia Museum of Art are three monumental canvases, each an acknowledged masterpiece and each, in its own distinctive way, a powerful response to the Arcadian tradition: Paul Cézanne’s enigmatic The Large Bathers (1906; Philadelphia Museum of Art), the largest of this artist’s paintings in an idyllic landscape, which caused a sensation when it was first exhibited in 1907; Paul Gauguin’s Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? (1897-98; Museum of Fine Arts, Boston), which situates an Arcadian theme in the distant realm of Polynesia where this artist spent his last years and created some of his finest and most powerful works; and Henri Matisse’s Bathers by a River (1909-17; The Art Institute of Chicago), the mural-sized painting that was inspired in part by Cézanne (Matisse owned and revered a small painting by Cézanne on the theme of the bathers, citing it as one of the greatest influences in his artistic life) and represents one of the greatest achievements of Matisse’s career.

    Gauguin, Where Do We Come From?

    Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going? Paul Gauguin, 1894-1898, oil on canvas; 54.8 in × 147.5 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

    Gauguin, Cézanne, Matisse: Visions of Arcadia  examines the different, yet closely related and complementary meanings of these three paintings, each a landmark in the history of modern art. Featuring more than 60 works by 27 artists drawn from public and private collections in this country and abroad, the exhibition  explores more broadly both the enduring appeal that the Arcadian ideal had for artists in the 19th century, such as Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot, Pierre Puvis de Chavannes, Georges Seurat, and Cézanne, and how it emerged once again in a new and powerful form in the work of a generation of modern painters — including Henri Rousseau, Pablo Picasso, André Derain, Robert Delaunay, and many others — who embraced the age-old theme of a serene and joyous life in harmony with nature and adapted to their own, often radical pictorial purposes.