DFHC 12/28/2011

>>>>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<<<<

Ask Cool Daddy gets M&M’d

Dear Cool Daddy: I might be crazy, but didn’t red M&Ms disappear for a while, then return…do you know the story behind this confectionary conundrum?  …from Mindy in Montauk

Dear Mindy: Comes to that, we all might be crazy…but you’re right, Red did go bye-bye for a bit…here an AP blurb explaining it from 1976…

Notice 3 strikes you’re out for the morons at Mars Candy: (1) Red Dye #2 wasn’t confirmed as a carcinogen….(2) red M&Ms weren’t made with Red Dye #2…and (3) “you can’t please everyone?” Of course you can: just make bags with and without Reds…give the people a choice!

Reminds me of Crayola in 1995, replacing  lemon, linme, peach, strawberry, cherry, chocolate, and other “food” smells in their Magic Scent crayon assortment with cedar chest, shampoo, new car, baby, powder, fresh air, even smoke (!!)…on the grounds that kids might eat the food-smelling crayons, which in any event are non-toxic to start with. But when asked how many cases of that happening were they actually aware of, they admitted…none. Morons. Anyhow, as you can see by Xmas 1977, Reds were out of the picture…

But notice the old tradition of using food to decorate the tree…I don’t see that too much anymore…well, maybe candy canes, but hardly anybody strings popcorn or cranberries as a general rule. And how about making hot chocolate with M&Ms in the blender…snazzy! So forward in time to 1985, and the morons have their “Coca Cola Classic” moment…maybe we can bring Reds back under the guise of special Christmas candies…And so they did, taking added pains to make it clear that these weren’t actually M&Ms, but merely “from the Makers of M&Ms.”

“Holidays” were a hit, and the trade dress evolved faster than the latest retrovirus…from Holidays on the bottom, to Holidays on the top, transitioning from solid color to white fronts, then adding M&Ms prominently above Holidays…

…to finally a very attractive diamond-shaped design…then in 1994, they’re not Holidays anymore, but full-fledged M&Ms.

And as per the plan, the Reds were quietly snuck back into the regular mixture in 1987, not to mention the new Blues a decade later. The other major branch of the Holidays family was the Easter pastels, undergoing a similar evolution…

Others were tried too, like Valentines, Hallowe’en (or “Harvest”) …even the 4th of July. But in time, marketing shifted from differently branded varieties to “line extensions” of the tried and true core product…and so it is today. Even M&M “Minis” and “Premiums” are still M&Ms…

Wicked Ballsy

But speaking of “differently branded varieties,” anybody remember “Royals”…as I recall, they were quite tasty, introduced in 1980…eventually morphing into “regular” mint M&Ms…

shameless P&L&U&Gs...

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC12/25/2011

>>>>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<<<<

Merry Christmas 1952

top…me at home…

bottom…more xmas loot at grandparents’ house…including Mobo “walking” horse…

Next Sunday, Genealogy for Baby Boomers will be back with the 5 Worst Mistakes…jingle, jingle…

tinsel-tossin’ shameless plugs are nigh…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC 12/21/2011

>>>>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<<<<

Ask Cool Daddy Get Munked

Dear Cool Daddy: I heard a DJ on the radio today play “The Chipmunk Song,” and he said that not only did it go to #1 on the Top 40 charts in 1958, but it was also Top Ten on the Rhythm and Blues chart. What was he smokin’?  …from Squirrely, in West Palm Beach

Dear Squirrely: I dunno, Newports maybe? But it’s completely true, and it just goes to show you how genres of music weren’t nearly as compartmentalized then as they are today…or as we in retrospect imagine that they were. The R&B chart below is also from December 22, 1958, and while 8 of the top ten make “sense”…Jackie Wilson, Clyde McPhatter, the Platters, Dee Clark, Lloyd Price, Fats Domino, James Brown, B.B. King…you’ve got to admit that the Chipmunks and Kingston Trio seem out of place, but there you go. Really, a wiser pop music historian than I will have to explain it to you…I can’t.  The next week, it was down to # 11…

Still, the Hot 100 chart tells the tale of the meteoric rise…debuting at #62, then to #37, #10, and #1, in just 4 weeks. That Ross Bagdasarian and Liberty Records weren’t expecting this is born out by the non-Christmas flip side, credited just to “David Seville.” But it isn’t too bad really, hear it here. For Christmas 1959, “The Chipmunk Song” was re-released with “Alvin’s Harmonica” as the flip, and together they scored a double-sided hit, peaking at #4.

Bagdasarian/Seville made the obligatory appearances on The Ed Sullivan Show…12/21/58 and 12/13/59…with hand-puppets.

And now that I think about it…2 Christmases ago, I wrote an article about the Chipmunk phenomenon…it’s archived at travelingcyst.bogspot.com…or if you’ve got a bigger screen, here’s the whole thing, saving you a click.

chipless plugs…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

G4BB 48: Crossing the Parallel

>>>>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<<<<

Crossing the Parallel

Dear G4BB: I’ve heard something about what’s called Cross and Parallel Cousins, but not much. Can you elucidate?  …from Harvey, in Bedford Falls

48.1 Dear Harvey: Yes indeed. A major part of genealogy consists of understanding concepts and the terminology used to describe them. We have been primarily concerned with the English language and English terminology…and by extension, the kinship concepts that apply to a typical “Western” culture. Other cultures and languages will have the same concepts but different terminology. Back in  G4BB #11  for example, we considered the Hispanic term for your parent’s 1st cousin…”second uncle” instead of “1st cousin once removed.” But there also exist in other kinship systems concepts not in use in our kinship system, which will then have no natural terms in English…and such is the case with Cross Cousins and Parallel Cousins, also sometimes called Ortho-Cousins.

48.2  Now these terms are strictly anthropological terms, since they classify 1st cousins in a way in which we do not…but they do describe a concept found in many societies, past and present. As shown in Chart 161, a Parallel Cousin (PC) is the child of your parent’s same-sex sibling, which is to say, your father’s brother or your mother’s sister. A Cross Cousin (CC) is the child of your parent’s opposite-sex sibling…your father’s sister or your mother’s brother.

48.3  Since we have nothing like this in the West, this particular “grouping” of 1st cousins will seem odd to us. The father’s side versus mother’s side classification of cousins seems natural enough, altho there really isn’t any significance to a cousin of yours being one or the other, apart from who has what last name. Another natural way for us to group cousins is by “boy cousins” and “girl cousins,” regardless of which side. But Parallel/Cross seems like an arbitrary distinction…altho as we shall see, there is a reason why it’s important to some cultures. But notice you can have PCs and CCs on both sides of your family, and they can be other either sex.

48.4  And one point should be understood: the PC/CC distinction is not really dividing 1st cousins into 2 different types…rather, it refers to 2 different relationships…and depending on the culture, there may or may not be a “generic” term that covers all the offspring of all your parents’ siblings, what we would simply call “1st cousins.” For example, mothers and fathers can be grouped together as “parents”…brothers and sisters are “siblings”…but we ourselves have no collective word for uncles and aunts. Thus in some kinship systems, PCs and CCs are what they are, and are not considered “types” or “subdivisions” of anything else.

48.5  Add to this the fact that in some systems, the alternative kinship grouping doesn’t stop with dividing up the 1st cousins…PCs may in fact be referred to by the same word that refers to siblings! In other words, one word will mean, from our point of view, “siblings and PCs” and another word will mean “CCs.”  Thus, what we might translate as “siblings” will mean “siblings and PCs,” while “cousins” will refer to CCs. And the specific nature of this type of grouping hints at the reason for it.

48.6  And that reason is to designate who you may or may not marry. With very rare exceptions (think Cleopatra and the Ptolemies), brother-sister marriages have been universally taboo. Half-siblings are often included in this prohibition, since many systems are what  is called “unilineal.” This means primary or sole kinship relationships are reckoned thru just one line, usually the father’s. By contrast, our system is “bilineal,” as both the father’s and mother’s sides of our families are of equal significance.

48.7  In a unilineal, patriarchal system, as many are, siblings are those individuals who share the same father, regardless of the mothers, and half-siblings are thus equivalent to full siblings. And the question is, since you always know who the mother is, but you may not know who the father is, how do you know your 1st cousin isn’t actually your half-sibling…or for the purposes of marriage, simply your sibling, and thus excluded?

48.8  And that in a nutshell was what was wrong with marrying Parallel Cousins. In Chart 163, can Abe marry his 1st cousin Zoë? Their fathers are brothers…so maybe yes, maybe no! Is it possible that Abe’s father is also Zoë’s father? That Abe’s father had relations with his brother’s wife? Or in Chart 164, mothers are sisters, same problem. Could Abe’s dad have fooled around with his wife’s sister? Mind you, I’m not judging, simply reporting. And it’s significant to remember that these were overwhelmingly matches arranged by the parents…the couple may have never met! To a suspicious culture, the PC grouping makes perfect sense.

48.9  Thus the taboo against marrying your PC…the chance that it might in fact be your half-sibling. But couldn’t Abe’s Cross Cousin also be his half-sibling? Of course, but it was deemed less likely, and since that would rule out all cousin marriages…and they were preferred for any number of reasons…the risk was worth taking. But as we see in Chart 165a, for that to happen, Abe’s father would have to have incestuous relations with his own sister, Zoë’s mother…or alternately, as in Chart 165b, with his brother-in-law’s wife. Either were considered less likely to happen than Abe’s father getting together with his wife’s sister or his brother’s wife.

48.10  And you know what they say: Familiarity breeds attempt! Maybe our more mobile, disconnected society has some benefits after all! Next week, the 5 biggest mistakes you can make in understanding kinship.

Copyright © 2011 Mark John Astolfi, All Rights Reserved

parallel shameless cross plugs…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Other Daily blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

NEW!   >>>>>   Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com/   <<<<<<

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC 12/14/2011

>>>>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<<<<

Ask Cool Daddy…and he will answer…

Dear Cool Daddy: There’s something fundamentally mixed up mandating orange tips for toy guns, isn’t there? I mean, paint the tip of a REAL gun orange, then rob a bank with it…right? …from Torchy, in Sioux City

Dear Torchy: I completely agree, and trust me, it’s been done…from gang members to  terrorists to bank robbers, it definitely has occurred to them. On the other hand, it does them no good, because there isn’t a police department in the country that doesn’t instruct its officers to regard anything that remotely resembles a gun, as a gun…a real gun…no matter what color the tip. Oddly enough, from the research I did on the net, it could very well be that the idea behind the law is to help children know what’s a real gun and what’s a toy…with the hope that they not mess with the real ones. “Young children can’t tell real guns from toys, and thus shoot their playmates by accident” is the way this theory goes. You think?

The federal law gives several other alternatives…a toy gun can be transparent…or colored in a bright “non-gun” color…and thus not need the orange tip. And besides the federal law, there are state and municipal laws that are even more stringent, so check your “local listings,” as they say. But despite the near universal claim that you can’t own a toy gun without an orange tip, there is debate in some circles. Bear in mind that laws are meant to be confusing, so that its easier for you to break them without meaning to, and to line lawyers’ pockets…but having read the federal law, my preliminary conclusion is that simply owning a non-orange-tip toy gun is NOT illegal. Manufacturing them and selling them definitely is illegal, and transporting them for commerce is as well, but the gray area is when you transport them for private, noncommercial purposes…say as a Christmas gift for your old-fashioned grandchildren who live across state lines.

Anyhow, this all dovetails into my thoughts about toy guns in general…how they were such a wonderful part of our Baby Boomer childhood…for both boys AND girls!…and how that seems to be lost today…most now are neon-colored monstrosities that shoot nerf balls or discs or something. But then I noticed this BB gun advertised in a Walmart circular (above, top)…and comparing it to a real Colt M4 (above, bottom)…well, it really does make one’s heart beat a little faster.  And not for nothing, but notice the way they position the orange tip along the maroon border of the ad, so as to obscure its obsequiousness…nice try, sez me…

Dear Cool Daddy: My great grandmother claims Mazda used to make Christmas lights…is she losing her marbles? And if not, how did they go from bulbs to cars?  …from Dale, in Dothan AL

Dear Dale: You are  overlooking a 3rd possibility: that they were 2 separate companies. As you can see above, there really were at one time Mazda light-bulbs…as well as Christmas lights, below. It was a trademark of the Shelby Electric Company of Shelby, Ohio from 1909 until 1945…by that time they were owned by GE, and Mazda lamps were sold world-wide. In fact, the tungsten-filament bulbs became an industry standard, and the name “Mazda” was licensed by many other companies, including GE’s main competitor, Westinghouse.  Thus it was something of a generic name, like Xerox, Kleenex, or Jello. The brand was phased out due to confusion with the up and coming Japanese auto maker, founded in 1920 as a maker of machine tools.

Interestingly enough, both the bulbs and the cars got their name from the same source: Ahura Mazda, the chief god of one of civilization’s  earliest religions, Zoroastrianism. Apparently in ancient Persian, Ahura meant light and Mazda meant wisdom, hence the connection to light-bulbs. The automaker also claims it ties in with the name of that company’s founder Juiro Matsuda. BTW, Zoroaster was the founder and prophet of the religion, but not its god…and the name is based on the Greek form of the original Persian, Zarathustra.

Wicked Ballsy

Uncle Wiki says Everybody’s Magazine went out of business in 1929. It’s blurry, but the above sure looks like it says 1934…either way…they were still using candles on Xmas trees? Ay caramba….

thus sprach shameless plugs, with an orange tip

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

G4BB 47: The Truth About Fractions

The Truth About Fractions

47.1  How much mathematics do you need to do genealogy? It’s up to you: a lot, a little, or none at all. You can figure out who your 3G Grandfather and 5th Cousin Once Removed are with any “cyphering” whatsoever. When it comes to deciding which of them is more closely related to you…or which of your “numbered” cousins is as closely related to you as those 2 are to themselves…well, English majors can do it, but a little math makes it a lot easier.

47.2  I hope I can explain it to you “without tears”…altho feel free to cry if you must…let it out, it’s good for you 😉 😉  But the fundamental thing you have to know about genealogical math is that it deals only with “powers of 2.” That’s the fancy term for multiplying 2 by 2, over and over. This is because we have 2 biological parents, no more, no less.

47.3  “2 to the first power” is just 2…”2 to the second power” is 2 x 2 = 4….”to the third” is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8…and so forth. Thus the fraction of genes one relative shares with another will be some combination of ½, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, etc. Nobody is related to anybody by any other “even” fractions…no 1/6, 1/10, 1/12, 1/20, etc….nor by any “odd” fractions, 1/3, 1/5, 1/9, 1/15, etc. You can come close, but only as close as the “powers of 2” can approximate. For example, you cannot be 1/3 related…but you can be 11/32 or .343, which is close to 1/3 or .333.

47.4  Now you are related to your sibling by ½…which is to say, half your genes you share, half you don’t. We will see why this is so in a moment. But given the progression of fractional powers of 2, and the progression of numbered cousins, the table on the far left of Chart 158 would seem reasonable, wouldn’t it? But it is in fact incorrect…the center table is gives the true Coefficients of Relationship or CR’s. And on the right, the “gaps” are filled by the appropriate relatives.

47.5 Why is your 1st Cousin only 1/8 related to you, and not 1/4, which seems like it would be so “obvious”? I admit this puzzled me too at first, but it makes sense once you flesh it out. The short answer is: you are ½ related to your father, he is ½ related to his brother (your uncle), and his brother is ½ related to his son (your 1st cousin)…½ x ½ x ½  = 1/8.

47.6  But to see how it works in detail,  a good analogy would be to imagine decks of playing cards. And since we are dealing with powers of 2 only, our decks will have 64 cards, not 52…say there’s a 5th suit, stars, and the ace is missing. BTW, such decks exist, you can buy one here if you’re feeling adventurous.

47.7  Your father is a deck of 64 with blue backs, your mother with red backs. Since everyone has to have 64 cards, you will choose randomly 32 from your father and 32 from your mother. Genealogically, this is illustrated on the left side of Chart 159. Clearly, all the blue cards you have, your father also has…that’s where you got them from! So half of your deck of 64 matches, front and back, a card in your father’s deck…half of them don’t, since they have red backs. The CR between you and your father is thus ½…and by the same reasoning, it’s ½ with your mother as well.

47.8  Your CR with your brother is also ½, but in a different way. You took 32 cards at random from your father’s deck and he did the same. Odds are, 16 of your blue cards will match 16 of your brother’s blue cards, and 16 will be different. If you were to actually try this at home, it could come out 15 to 17, 12 to 20, or even 8 to 26…but since we have thousands of genes, and you’re picking strictly by chance, it will come out very close to 50/50, matches to non-matches. You and your brother will mark your blue cards that don’t match with an X, and leave the ones that do match unmarked. The same thing applies to the cards you both got from your mother’s deck.

47.9  As you can see on the right side of Chart 159, you and your brother share 16 blue cards and 16 red cards, for a total of 32…out of 64…so your CR is again ½. You might say that your relationship to your father is a “vertical” ½, and to your brother a “horizontal” ½, at least according to the way we diagrammed it. The important point is, the ½ comes about in 2 different ways, and that has a bearing on how you’re related to your 1st Cousin.

47.10   Now in the same way that we compared the “decks” of you and your brother, we can compare yours with your 1st Cousin’s. In Chart 160, your father and his brother (your uncle) are in the middle, blue & red, and each marry a different woman. Right off the bat, half of your cards will be different from half of your 1C’s cards…you got 16 green backs from your father and 16 orange backs from your mother, he got 16 grays and yellows from his. The only relationship you can have with your 1C is thru the 16 blues you each got, and the 16 reds. Let’s look at the blues.

47.11 When you picked 16 of your father’s blue cards, picking randomly of course, you got 8 blue X’s and 8 blue non-X’s…picking from his father, your 1C did the same. Now since the blue X’s don’t match to start with, those you got can’t match those your 1C got…so they are out. The only blue cards that can possibly match are those you picked from the non-X’s your father and his father shared. There are 8 of those cards each…and just as before, half will match and half won’t…so you and your 1C share 4 of the blue non-X’s, and 4 of them you don’t. Remember, that’s 4 out of 64 total cards, so thru the blue side of your fathers, your CR is 4/64 or 1/16. But of course the same holds true with your fathers’ red cards, so that’s another 1/16…and 1/16 + 1/16 = 1/8.

47.12  I know, it’s still complicated…but it is what it is…thank you, sexual reproduction!!  Maybe that’s why cloning has so much appeal 😉 😉 And if you’re feeling really adventurous, you can try it all again with half-siblings and half-1st Cousins…but when you count up the squares that match, you’ll ultimately find that the whole thing checks.

47.13   And it’s interesting to see how little you and your first cousin actually are related…it helps to explain why 1st Cousins marriages have been so common down thru history, and still are in many parts of the world today. Plus legal in half the states in the US…you don’t have to like it, but there you go…next time, more letters from the bulging mail-bag…take care…

Copyright © 2011 Mark John Astolfi, All Rights Reserved

shameless plugs…who are only “blood brothers”…pre-AIDS of course…geesh…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Other Daily blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

NEW!   >>>>>   Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com/   <<<<<<

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC 12/7/2011

>>>  don’t forget to check out Stolf’s Blog  <<<

Ask Cool Daddy, Up on 2 Wheels…

Dear Cool Daddy:  Saw these strange-looking bikes in a Walmart flier and they sort of rang a bell…waaaaaaaaay off in the distance…are you any help?  …from Sage, in Cheyenne WY

Dear Sage: Always…and from what I glean off the internet, these bikes are a spin-off from a line of kids’ bicycle helmets…hence the “skull” in Raskullz. Thus  these bikes have a big “head” on the front, which is actually a storage compartment, but also serves to encourage the kids to  be sure they also have a  Raskullz helmet. Personally, the whole deal looks really ugly to me, but its a valuable lesson for the tots in consumerism…even tho something looks stupid, if enough kids go for it, you can’t be cool without it! Time will tell if these catch on, but apparently there’s already a “base” of kids who have the helmets.  BTW, these beasts have names…left to right, Shark Attax, Sparkle Heart, and T. Rad Rex…plus there are a lot more.

Now what you might be remembering is the legendary Gene Autry bike made from the late 1940s well into the 1950s. It was a product of the Monark company of Sweden…their most popular line in the US were the Silver King bikes, dating from the 1930s…they also made full-size mopeds and motorcycles. As you can see, some of the details and accessories varied from bike to bike, but one of the key innovations was having a gun-and-holster attached. Those horse-head handle-grips (lower right) don’t look all that comfortable, but there you go.

And of course, there’s that horse-head stuck on the front…which I vaguely recall thinking was sort of dumb, like a rocking-horse bike or something. They were expensive too, but Baby Boomers were learning the meaning of the word “status”…and when they got older, they learned another interesting word: “kitsch.”

But one thing some of us Groovy Geezers forget is that girls as well as boys were big “cowboy” fans, and sure enough, Monark made a girls Gene Autry bike, tricked out in the same brown-and-cream color scheme…not pink like you’d see today. You can see the colored “jewels” applied liberally, especially on the tops of the fenders. And again, you might not recall that such baubles were for both boys and girls…but their presence here is inspired by the studs and jewels that decorated leather motorcycle togs and cowboy gear of the period…below, a belt and two wrist-guards…

 WICKED BALLSY…NOT!

Speaking of bikes today, this design makes me nervous..the seat-post that just…STOPS in midair. I’m sure these bikes are tested and are solid and safe, but it looks soooooo wrong, nez pah?

shameless plugs, freewheeling…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

G4BB 46: More of David, by Half

More of David, by Half

46.1  Last week were were flexing our genealogical muscles with a chart of descendants of the Biblical King David…and I left you with the question of how Jeush (O) and Abijah (P) are related, given that they have the same father, their mothers are both half-1st cousins and 2nd cousins, and the father is both half-1st cousin and 2nd cousin to one of the mothers, but just half-1st cousin to the other…whew!

46.2  And this seems like a reasonable time to review the genealogical concept of “half-relations.”

46.3  Suppose Abe and Zoë say that their grandfathers were brothers. That would make then 2nd cousins, the offspring of 1st cousins, as shown in Chart 152a. Now this is correct as far as it goes, as long as we bear in mind that it is a short-hand for Chart 152b…which is to say, we take them at their word, and assume by “brothers” they mean “full brothers.” And as we see in Chart 152c, the grandfathers could be half-brothers, so that their children would be half-1st cousins, and Abe and Zoë half-2nd cousins.

46.4  Now all the half-siblings I’ve ever met called their half-siblings their “siblings”…brothers or sisters. Further discussion night reveal that they have “different mothers,” in which case you could say: Oh, so you’re half-siblings…to which they might reply: Yeah, technically, but we don’t think of it that way. This illustrates the difference between genealogical terminology and “everyday” terminology…thus for example you might introduce your 1st cousin once removed as your cousin, or your uncle, or your father’s cousin, or your father’s 1st cousin…but probably not as your 1st cousin once removed. But every family has different customs and habits…which may vary between individuals within the same family.

46.5  The significance of Chart 152 is this: it’s somewhat sloppy to say that the closest common ancestor of 2nd cousins is a great grandparent…if they are full 2nd cousins, they would have 2 common great grandparents…they would share both a great grandfather and a great grandmother, as in 152b. If not, then we have 152c, where the grandfathers are half-brothers, the parents half-1st cousins, and Abe and Zoë half-2nd cousins. Here their closest common ancestor is literally one person, not 2…but in general, we assume we are dealing with full relations unless told otherwise, for simplicity’s sake.

46.6  And what does it matter, really? Well, in everyday life, it may matter a lot, a little, or not at all. But in genealogy and kinship it is very significant…full siblings share all their ancestors…one does not have a relative in the past that the other doesn’t…both in the mother’s line and the father’s line. For half-siblings, there are 3 lines of descent, not 2, and they only share one of them. This certainly could be crucial from a genetic or medical standpoint…less so from a matrimonial standpoint today, but that could still be relevant depending on your religion, personal beliefs, or the laws where you live.

46.7  But where it gets really interesting is with the “clue” I gave you last week for O and P’s relationship: “Enhanced Half-Siblings.” (Sorry, but there is no “everyday” term for this!)  Most of the time, half-brothers with the same father will have mothers who are unrelated. But the mothers could be related, as in Chart 153 where they are sisters….making  Bob and Cal 1st cousins as well as half-brothers. Now you might object: How can they be 1st cousins if they’re “already something else,” in this case, half-brothers?

46.8  Well, as was hinted at in the 3 diagrams of Chart 152, it’s because from a genealogical standpoint, full siblings are “Double Half-Siblings.” It’s thought of this way: you can have the same mothers (half-siblings), the same fathers (half-siblings), or both (full siblings.) Another way to put this would be that full siblings are half-siblings on one side, and half-siblings on the other side…while with “actual” half-siblings, they are half-siblings only on one side, and not related on the other. In the case of Bob and Cal, they are related on both sides…half-brothers on their father’s side…and 1st cousins on their mothers’ side. (And if you’re thinking that technically full siblings could be considered a form of Enhanced Half-Siblings…well, you’re right, but please don’t think that way! It’s bad enough that they’re Double Half-Siblings, you know?)

46.9  The Coefficient of Relationship for full sibs is ½…for half-sibs is 1/4…and not surprisingly, for Bob and Cal’s type of Enhanced Half-Sibs, it’s 3/8, which is half-way between 4/8 (½) and 2/8 (1/4). Of course, the 2 parents can be related in other ways besides siblings…half-sibs, 1st cousins, half-1st cousins, 2nd cousins, both half-sibs and 1st cousins (!!)…the possibilities are endless.

46.10  Now we’re pretty much ready to tackle the relationship between O and P, except for one hitch: unlike “normal” Enhanced Half-Siblings, the 2 sides of the family are related to each otherwhich is to say, the common parent on one side and the 2 parents on the other side are in fact related, over and above the 2 parents on one side being related to each other…duh!…that’s why O and P are such a tangle! So let’s approach it from a simplified case, then apply what we learn to O and P.

46.11  But before the “simplified case,” we need the “super-simplified case,” that of Double First Cousins. And here we can state, as per Chart 154, the DOUBLING RULE:

A’s father is brother of Z’s father  = 1st cousins
A’s mother is sister of Z’s mother = 1st cousins

So A and B are 1st cousins “on both sides of the family”…hence Double 1st Cousins, with a CR of 1/8 + 1/8 = 1/4. or the equivalent of half-brothers.

46.12  Now let’s look at the “Super-Enhanced” Half-Brothers…in Chart 155, we have taken “Normal” Enhanced Half-Brothers Bob and Cal from Chart 153, and made both sides of their families related…in this case their father A is 1st cousin to their mothers Y and Z.

46.13  What this does is add a Double Cousin relationship to Bob and Cal, and to make this relationship clearer to see, in Chart 156 I have moved A over to the other side…and as I have done in the past, his “background” is a different color to indicate that this part of the chart has been duplicated.

Now if you apply the DOUBLING RULE, you will see that Bob and Cal are indeed Double 2nd Cousins, on top of everything else…

Bob’s father is 1st cousin of Cal’s mother  = 2nd cousins
Bob’s mother is 1st cousin of Cal’s father  = 2nd cousins

This is tricky, since the 2 individuals I’ve underlined above are the same person…but this makes no difference to the Double 2nd Cousin relationship. Taking the extreme example of Cleopatra and her sister Berenice (she had 5 siblings, altho whether full or half or some of each is unknown, so we’ll assume full)…their parents where brother and sister…so Cleo and Berry were both sisters and Double 1st cousins. Thus Bob and Cal are half-brothers, 1st cousins, and Double 2nd cousins, for a CR of 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/32 = 7/16, which is just slightly less related than if they were full brothers = 8/16 or ½.

46.14  And now at last we are prepared to look at O and P…and what I have done is to recast their relationship in the form of the Super-Enhanced Bob and Cal diagram in Chart 156,  so that we may compare and contrast, as they say. To start with, we see in Chart 157 that O and P are half-brothers on their father N’s side, with a CR of 1/4. The relationship between their mothers is a complicated one (see the chart after 46.1)…2nd cousins on one side, half-1st cousins on the other…so we will instead use their CR of 3/32…how convenient! The offspring of 2 related individuals have one quarter of the CR of their parents, so thru their mothers O and P have a CR of 3/128…O and P are 3rd cousins (1/128) and half-2nd cousins (1/64 or 2/128)… 1/128 + 2/128 = 3/128…whoo hoo, it checks!

46.15  Finally, applying the DOUBLING RULE, we see that while O and P are related in 2 ways, they are not the same ways, since their father is related to their mothers in different ways…

                         P’s father is 3/32 to O’s mother  = 3/128  (remember, 1/4th)
P’s mother is 1/16 to O’s father  = 1/64  (ditto…)

So taken all together, O and P have a CR of 1/4 (thru father) + 3/128 (thru mothers) + 1/64 + 3/128 (the irregular double cousin relationship, since their fathers and mothers are related)…for a grand total of 40/128…somewhere between half and full siblings, but closer to half…and all I can say is…Hallelujah and Amen!  Next week, why Cousins are 1/8 and not 1/4….see yez…

Hey and don’t miss a special Genealogy sidelight at tomorrow’s Stolf’s Blog…link below!!!!

Copyright © 2011 Mark John Astolfi, All Rights Reserved

shameless half-plugs-in-law…on your great grand uncle’s 5th cousin’s butcher’s side…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Other Daily blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

NEW!   >>>>>   Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com/   <<<<<<

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC 11/30/2011

Who’s Eating Ask Cool Daddy?

Dear Cool Daddy: I remember one year, you and Stolf were talking on the radio about the “cannibal” Christmas Tree. What in the world is the story behind that? Or shouldn’t I even ask? Gulp!  …from Ceylon, in South Colton NY

Dear Ceylon: I agree, it sounds rather unpleasant, but chalk it up to some people’s poor memories and/or general cultural ignorance.  Most artificial trees today are marketed under fanciful names…for example, below you see Kensington, Endicott, Preston, Van Buren, and McKinley Pines…mind you, these names correspond to no actual botanical species, they are just made-up “brand names.”

I googled them, coming up with 3 to 10 thousand hits apiece…(as opposed to the over 300 million hits you get with simply “pine”)…and needless to say, not one hit had the slightest arboreal, horticultural, or forestry connection…all were fake Xmas trees for sale. It’s intended to imbue these trees with a status, elegance…or “swelligance” if you will…that they simply don’t possess. They are just plastic Christmas trees, which is fine, but if you think a “Kensington Pine” is better than a mere “fake pine,” you’re barking up the wrong tree, dog-face.

And it can get downright silly…see the “Preston white pine” above? I don’t know how to break the news to you, but a White Pine is “white” because that’s the color of its wood…not its bark, and certainly not its needles, which are are green as can be.  D’oh!!  Lately I’ve been seeing something in ads called “Mixed Pine”…no clue as to what that might mean, probably because it doesn’t mean anything. And a “Cashmere” Christmas tree? Not made of yarn I hope? Again, nobody seems willing to come right out and actually explain it, but it always seem to be used with the phrase “Cashmere bottle-brush needles”…so if you don’t have one, and would like one, but can’t afford one this year, hang some you-know-whats (left) from your current pitiful tree, and hope your guests are fooled…

Now there are any where from 105 to 125 different species of pine trees, no one can agree exactly, plus many evergreens called pines that aren’t actually “true” pines. But the real ones include….Scotch, Swiss, Northern, bull, cluster, Jeffrey, Canadian, foxtail, loblolly, stone, lacebark, sugar…not to mention…red, white, yellow, blue, and black pines, all of which of course are green. But these names are apparently not “sexy” enough for the stores….they don’t nearly sound like something from a picture print by Currier and Ives. So you get Glenwood, Lakeshore, Bristol, Monticello, Rocky Mountain, Dawson, Sugarloaf, Scottsdale, Northfield, …all woodsy, wintery, or Westerny sounding…and yes, even Donner Pine…seen below, from 2007.

So what? There they are on the map…not hurting anyone, right? Donner Pass and Donner Lake in the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains, west of Truckee, California. Trouble is, these places are so named because it is there that, in November of 1846, a group of pioneers lead by George Donner and his family were stranded by heavy snow…only 45 of the 81 survived, and some did indeed resort to cannibalism…altho it is generally believed they ate only those who had died of illness or starvation, and did not actually kill anyone just to eat them.

The Donner Party is today seen as one of the most spectacular tragedies in California history…but on the positive side, it did result in more effective systems of relief and rescue for trapped travelers. And that’s why people in that part of the country remember and commemorate the episode, and don’t shy away from its more gruesome elements. Pictured below are 2 of the survivors, James and Margaret Reed. Altho last year, archaeologists examined bones from the reputed camping site, and found they were cattle, horses, dogs, but no humans. Well, like they say: Everything you know is wrong. What’s more likely is, those they ate were given proper burials, with only the animal bones left strewn about.

So naming a Christmas tree “Donner Pine” probably was a bit much…unless they meant the reindeer whose real name is Donder…but I doubt it. Still, that’s what happens when you don’t pay attention in American History class, you know?

Not So Wicked Ballsy

Xmas tree fads come and they go…see here for 2 recent beauts. Now I suppose with some things, less is more, but I’ll never agree that that applies to Xmas trees. On the right, a silly thing from Target, called a “slim” or sometimes “pencil” tree. Not for nothing, but back in the day, this might have been called a “cigarette tree”…LOLOLOL…and on the left, a strange “pull-up” contraption…doesn’t show how you get from the 3rd stage in the small illustration to the finished product…”add the top” seems to leave something to be desired, nez pah?

shameless plugs, round and firm and fully packed…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Daily Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Other Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment

DFHC 11/28/2011

Dear Friends: Starting this week, Deep Fried Hoodsie Cups will be twice-weekly instead of daily…”Ask Cool Daddy” on Wednesdays…and “Genealogy 4 Baby Boomers” on Saturdays.

I started this blog in September of 2010…and now, over 400 posts later, daily hits have increased some 30-fold, and I am flattered and grateful. Still, now that I’m working again after an 18-month “vacation”…and have tried to keep up the daily routine for a month now…I find it’s just too much. I’ve haven’t run out of things to talk about…feel like I’ve just scratching the surface, really. But there are sadly only so many hours in the day.

If you still need a daily “fix”…my gosh…when I look back over 400 past blogs, I am truly astonished at the variety of trivial and extra-trivial topics touched upon…try 2/16/2011 as a typical example. And my original blog, Stolf’s Blog/Daily Dozen, will continue unchanged…#477 tomorrow…wow!…that’s shifting a lot of sand!

But then again, not once has anyone clicked the donate button and tossed a coin in my hat. So despite the hits, I guess interest just isn’t that great. Truth is, we’re all just  grains in the vast internet desert.  See you Wednesday!!!


shameless plugs…go there…be happy…

Podcasts at http://stolfpod.podbean.com  and   http://thewholething.podbean.com

Deep Fried Hoods Cups Blog:    https://deepfriedhoodsiecups.wordpress.com/

Daily Blog at http://stolf.wordpress.com  (the legendary Stolf’s Blog)

More bloggage at  http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com  and  http://www.examiner.com/retro-pop-culture-in-watertown/mark-john-astolfi

Updated Resume at http://travelingcyst.blogspot.com/p/resume.html

Audio samples at  http://stolfspots.podbean.com

Posted in \baby boomers | Leave a comment