The Inevitable Tragedy of the Titanic

A century later, it might seem difficult to recapture how it felt to hear the news of the Titanic disaster. Yet it couldn’t have been much different from how we felt in 2001, when we saw the Twin Towers burn and collapse.

In both cases, there was an intense hunger for news—any news—that would explain what had just happened. In 1912, thanks to the telegraphic internet, every major newspaper had most of the details by the next day: the RMS Titanic, the world’s largest ocean liner, sailing from Southampton to New York, had struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sunk within hours. Over 1,500 passengers and crew members had drowned.

In 1912, as in 2001, learning what had happened proved far easier than learning why.

Several explanations were offered by American and British newspapers: the helmsman steered the wrong course; the builders used a poor design and cheap steel; the ship was moving at top speed even though the officers had been warned of icebergs; no one saw the iceberg until it was too late because the company refused to issue binoculars to its officers.

But when the Post’s editor wrote about the Titanic deaths, they directed no blame at Captain Smith, the White Star Line, or the Belfast ship builders. They pointed straight at the American and British governments.

The Titanic carried enough lifeboats to hold one third of her full complement of crew and passengers. The question, “What would happen to the other two thirds if the ship sank?” was never raised until it was too late.

A word from the Governments of Great Britain and the United States would have compelled every liner to carry enough lifeboats for all on board. That word was not spoken. The Governments took the chance of an unnecessary loss of over sixteen hundred lives.

Technically, the Titanic broke no law. British ocean liners were only required to carry 16 lifeboats, which could hold 1060 people. (The Titanic had 2,200 passengers and crew members, but only 20 lifeboats, and many of these were lowered away only partly full.)

The rules weren’t changed because the maritime authorities believed modern ships were inherently safe. In the ten years prior to the Titanic’s launch, over 6,000,000 passengers had crossed the Atlantic, and just 6 had been lost at sea. The British Board of Trade had begun regarding lifeboats as unnecessary equipment that took up valuable deck space.

The Saturday Evening Post of 1912 was as strong an advocate of business and capitalism as any American magazine. But its editors believed the businesses, left to themselves, would carelessly endanger lives.

Artist's Version of the Iroquois Fire.

Chicago had a fire ordinance relating to theaters. To enforce it rigidly would have put the manager of the Iroquois Theater to quite a little trouble and expense. It was not rigidly enforce—and [605 customers] died when the theater burned.

From a score of sickening examples, New York knew the danger of firetraps like the Triangle shirtwaist factory; but it didn’t care to interfere with the profits of the landlord—until the catastrophe! [146 garment workers died.]

Many stores in the United States are fire-traps, with inadequate exits, narrow aisles, and counters piled with inflammable stuff that would go up like tinder if a fire started. The Government knows this, but, generally speaking, will do nothing about it—to the injury of profits—until a holocaust somewhere forces its hand.

The Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire.

The public never knows. It reads of the steamer’s tennis court and swimming pool, of the theater’s handsome decorations; of the store’s bargain. The public goes, as a matter of course, with a vague assurance that there are laws and inspectors to make things safe.

Congress proposes to find out where the blame for the Titanic tragedy rests.

It rests, first of all, upon the Governments of the United States and Great Britain.

In fact, the Post reported, the U.S. government had been given fair warning of the problem, in no uncertain terms, two years before the Titanic took 1,500 people to their deaths. In February, 1910, the president of the International Seamen’s Union told Congress:

"Which?— Fate? — Or economy in life boats?" A 1912 cartoon.

There is not sailing today on any ocean a passenger vessel carrying the number of boats needed to take care of the passengers and crew, or a sufficient number of skilled men to handle the boats that are carried…

The average ship-owner knows this; but he must… carry passengers as cheaply as the other fellow.

If vessels are lost the insurance—that is, the public—pays the loss.

If passengers are lost that is very bad, but there is God to be blamed!

If seamen are lost, why there are plenty more idle men to be had on shore. They cost nothing, not even in the training, because they need no training, no skill being required by law.

As to the passengers, are they satisfied with these conditions? The passengers do not know. They are told a lot of rot about bulkheads, vessels so built that they will not sink or burn. Of course, we seamen know this to be the veriest nonsense.”

The warning may have been ignored because it principally concerned sailors, not the public. But the welfare of workers and the public, the editors concluded, was the same thing.

 

We wish to make the moral as broad as possible. Every one of us, every minute of the day, is in the same boat with the workingman. If we ignore his just complaints it is at our own peril.

 

50 Years Ago: Dick Sargent

Clutter by Dick Sargent

Artist Richard “Dick” Sargent created 47 Post covers in the ’50s and early ’60s. As shown in this March 31, 1962, cover illustration, Sargent’s framing technique turns humorous snippets of everyday life—warts and all—into a compelling story. Will the harried husband ever find his pants and escape the cluttered closet?

Also, be sure to check out Todd Pitock’s story, Conquer Clutter and view more of our Clutter Covers.

Roller Derby Renaissance

Roller derby, as it was played in the days of Maw Bogash and Toughie Brashun, continued for several years before waning audiences caused it to fold in 1972. A brief, and misguided, attempt to revive the sport in 1986 was ABC’s Rock-n-Roller Games, which involved a figure-8 track, “Wall of Death,” and live alligator pit.  From 1999 to 2001, the show RollerJam aired on The Nashville Network (TNN), featuring roller derby played on roller blades instead of quad skates.  The ratings were low, however, and the show never gained recognition.

The year that Rollerjam went off the air saw a rebirth of roller derby.  The modern incarnation of the sport was born in an Austin bar as approximately 100 women met for the first time to discuss a new, women-only roller derby league.  This beginning led to two leagues, one playing on a traditional banked track and the other on the flat track.  The flat-track leagues have taken off like wildfire, due in large part to the ease with which flat tracks can be constructed and relocated. The Women’s Flat Track Derby Association (WFTDA) currently has 130 full member leagues and 71 apprentice leagues.

Naptown Roller Girls Roller Derby photo by Tom Klubens.
Naptown Roller Girls. Photo by Tom Klubens.

Today, roller derby is growing by leaps and bounds.  New leagues are springing up all over the country and leagues that have been around for several years are pushing the sport to new levels of athleticism and strategy.  The days of showmanship and brawling are rapidly disappearing. There are still plenty of blocks thrown, tumbles taken, and injuries suffered, but now the sport is governed by a strict set of rules and enforced by league referees.   The women of roller derby are athletes that train and work as hard as athletes in any other sport.  While many teams still incorporate short shorts, make-up, and roller derby noms de guerre, just a few minutes at any bout will show you that this new incarnation of the sport is all about athleticism.  In an effort to further promote the sport’s commitment to strong athletics, the members of some teams have begun playing under their legal, given names and in standardized uniforms.

Members and apprentice leagues of the Women’s Flat Track Derby Association play by WFTDA rule sets and are refereed by WFTDA trained officials. An international rule set has been drawn up by USA Roller Sports (USARS), which is recognized as the national governing body of roller sports by the U.S. Olympic Committee and the International Roller Sports Federation. As the national governing body, USARS is the only organization that can petition for the sport to be entered into the Olympics, a goal they are currently working toward with roller sports already on the short list for inclusion in the 2020 games.

Meanwhile, banked track derby still attracts a large following and plays by a rule set created by the American Roller Skating Derby Association and the Bay City Bombers of California.

Naptown Roller Girls Roller Derby. Photo by Tom Klubens.
Naptown Roller Girls. Photo by Tom Klubens.

If you’re missing the days of no-holds-barred, rough-and-tumble derby, you’ll find it at a Renegade Derby league, whose no-rules philosophy encourages playing at any time, on any surface.  For those interested in the sport but hesitant to sign up for the tumbles and falls, there’s also Derby Lite, an organization that promotes physical fitness and roller derby skills without the impact or competition found in league play.

The game has evolved greatly in the last decade. The increase in regulations and rules have turned a wild, fast sprint around the track into a thoroughly strategized and competitive sport that forces teams to continually improve their tactics and skill level.

Women still dominate the flat track sport, dedicating hours every week to a sport they play out of choice rather than the desperation driven by the Great Depression.

Every year, teams from across the country compete in regional tournaments for a chance at the national title.

Roller Derby is spreading across the world as well, with leagues now active in over 35 countries. December 2011 saw the first Roller Derby World Cup, in Toronto, Canada, with teams from the USA, United Kingdom, European Union, and South America.

For a quick guide to the rules of modern derby as played by WFTDA leagues, watch this video, courtesy of the Naptown Roller Girls of Indianapolis, IN:

And catch a glimpse of flat track roller derby in action with this video of the Naptown Roller Girls filmed during the Northwest Central Region “Monumental Mayhem” Tournament, held in October 2011:

Since its revival in 2001 the sport has continued to attract women by offering them a unique arena to express their athleticism and inner rebel. The evolving sport represents both empowerment and opportunity, not only for those that participate, but for fans, spectators, and volunteers as well.

Special thanks to Strawberry Jam and CacaFuego of the Naptown Roller Girls, Beattie Sedgwick of the Circle City Derby Girls, and Craig Bailey of the Charlotte Speed Demons for their thoughtful input.

Hummus and Cucumber Appetizer Bites

Whether you’re planning a springtime soiree or simply looking for a fresh snack that won’t pack on the pounds, these hummus and cucumber bites will fit the bill. The hummus is loaded with iron, protein, and fiber, and — while pita bread is the traditional accompaniment to hummus — cucumbers keep this dish light and low calorie.

The combination is an easy- and fun-to-make appetizer with a low glycemic index that you’ll want to serve up all season long. (This recipe is courtesy of Kalyn Denny’s food blog Kalyn’s Kitchen, which regularly features South Beach-friendly and low-glycemic recipes.)

Hummus and Cucumber Appetizer Bites

Recipe Yields 10-14 Appetizer Bites

Cucumber hummus appetizer bites.
A diet-friendly snack that party guests will appreciate.

Ingredients

You will also need one small Ziploc bag or other thick plastic bag with one corner cut off.

Directions

1. If you are using European-style cucumbers (as Kalyn does), peel them in strips to leave some green color on. Otherwise, you should peel the skin off of regular grocery-store cucumbers.

2. Cut the cucumber into slices around 3/4 inch to 1 inch thick.

3. Put the hummus into a small Ziploc bag and cut off the corner. Use this like a pastry bag and squeeze it onto the top of each cucumber slice, just enough to slightly mound up but not so much that it starts to droop over.

4. Sprinkle the Hummus and Cucumber Bites with sesame seeds and serve.


You can find Kalyn’s Kitchen on Facebook and Twitter.

Classic Covers: Harrison Fisher

Harrison Fisher (right) in a November 1909 issue of the Post.
Harrison Fisher (right) in a November 1909 issue of the Post.

Harrison Fisher was known as “Father of a Thousand Girls” for his paintings of beautiful women. He was also the father of over eighty covers for The Saturday Evening Post.

Harrison Fisher (1875-1934) was the son and grandson of artists, and by the time he was six, his father was teaching him about art.

Fisher became a newspaper illustrator while he was still in his teenage years. In the days before photography was commonplace, newspapers depicted current events and stories in black and white sketches. Soon, however, it was clear that paintings of beautiful women were his forté and he found his ladies described as successors to the Gibson Girls.

Much like the Gibson Girls, the Fisher Girls were the epitome of the All-American beauty with hourglass figures, delicate facial features and rich, lustrous hair. If you could see any of this beyond those hats, that is.

Being a Fisher model was the hot job. Fisher’s models ran in high society circles, motoring with millionaires and staying at luxury mansions. But one model was especially interesting.

Big Black Hat by Harrison Fisher from June 29, 1912
‘Big Black Hat’
June 29, 1912

Her name was Dorothy Gibson. Her story begins with a brief career as a vaudeville singer and dancer before she became Harrison Fisher’s favorite model. She was also a survivor from the Titanic.

It is said that publisher William Randolph, with his newspapers and magazines like Cosmopolitan, tried to keep Fisher so busy he couldn’t work for other publications.

Indeed, Fisher illustrated most Cosmopolitan covers–nearly 300–between 1913 and his death in 1934. It was Cosmo that gave him the nickname “Father of a Thousand Girls.”

In fact, Fisher was reported in some sources to have had an exclusive contract with Cosmopolitan magazine, which is either inaccurate, or the artist found a way around it, as he did over 80 covers for The Saturday Evening Post between 1900 and 1915.

Facebook: You Have the Right Not to Give Employers Your Passwords

In recent months, an increasing number of companies and organizations have been asking prospective employees not only for their Facebook usernames, but also for their passwords. What started as a seemingly isolated incident in North Carolina last year turned out to be a lot more common than we thought. Last Friday, Facebook addressed the situation for the first time, and the company has this to say: You have the right not to give employers your passwords if and when they ask.

In an update on the website, company Chief Privacy Officer Erin Egan talked about how alarming the practice is, and how it compromises the privacy of everyone on your friend list, along with your own. According to Egan: “It is important that everyone on Facebook understands they have a right to keep their password to themselves.” In fact, if you take a look at Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, it’s a violation to share your password with anyone else. 

Meanwhile, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is currently writing a bill to prohibit any employer from ever practicing the unspeakable policy. The Senator told the website Politico that he is deeply troubled by this tactic, and that his bill would be ready very soon.


This story originally appeared on Tecca. More from Tecca:

Beginner’s guide to Facebook privacy settings

More colleges and employers requesting applicants’ Facebook passwords than ever before

Senate explores legality of employers demanding your Facebook password

Cartoons: Cell Phones

Sure, your cell phone has become indispensable, but have you noticed how annoying other people are with them?

from May/June 2009

from May/June 2009

“You lived the first 70 years of your life without a cell phone; why is forgetting it at home now a cause for panic?” from March/April 2004

"You lived the first 70 years of your life without a cell phone;
why is forgetting it at home now a cause for panic?"
from March/April 2004


 “Yeah, I'm standing here alone yelling a bunch of nonsense but if I had a cell phone, you'd think it was acceptable!” from January/February 2009

"Yeah, I'm standing here alone yelling a bunch of nonsense
but if I had a cell phone, you'd think it was acceptable!"
from January/February 2009

 “Every time I try to make a call, I take a picture of my thumb.” from March/April 2008

"Every time I try to make a call,
I take a picture of my thumb."
from March/April 2008

 “It's nap time, first graders. So please turn off your pages, beepers and cell phones.” from July/August 2007

"It's nap time, first graders.
So please turn off your pages, beepers and cell phones."
from July/August 2007
 “Didn't you like it better when we talked directly?” from January/February 2005

"Didn't you like it better when we talked directly?"
from January/February 2005

 “Could you suggest some place to go where my husband's cell phone won't work?” from January/February 2005

"Could you suggest some place to go
where my husband's cell phone won't work?"
from January/February 2005

The Regular Party Man

political streets in opposite directions when it comes to Democrats and Republicans

In our March/April 2012 issue, Frederick E. Allen explores the history of America’s two-party system — an issue that The Saturday Evening Post was talking about more than a hundred years ago. In the following poem from the December 23, 1911 Post, J.W. Foley rhapsodizes about straight-ticket voting.

I am the Upright Citizen —Taxpayer is my name;
I’m one of the City’s Solid Men and I’m everywhere the same;
I’ve built the sewers and paved the streets, and paid for the parks, you see,
and all the Contractors, Bosses, Beats and Leeches feed on me—
you see, I’m a Regular Party Man—it’s bred in my flesh and bone.
I’ve voted for every Republican since the party has been known
I always vote my ticket straight, though at times it’s a bitter pill;
but I never split it, and I may state that I hope I never will.

Now Smith, next door, is a Democrat, and another Solid Man,
who always knows right where he’s at— and he votes by the selfsame plan ;
and Smith is an Upright Citizen, and his name’s Taxpayer too ;
and as one of the City’s Solid Men he’s down on the Grafting Crew ;
and so am I—so we go to the polls and vote straight down the line :
two square and quite well-meaning men —and his vote offsets mine!

NOW I’ve talked with Smith and he’s talked with me, and we’ve talked quite plainly too;
and I’ve said to him : “Now, Smith, you see, I’m down on this Grafting Crew ;
our man is the man to win the fight—he’s a clean and able man.”
And Smith says: “Yes, I guess that’s right ; but he’s a Republican.
And I always vote my ticket straight from A to Z—that’s how
I’ve always done and it’s getting late to change my methods now.
Our man isn’t what he ought to be—I quite agree in that;
but he’s the party nominee, and you know I’m a Democrat.
So I guess I’ll stick to the good old ship and vote right down the line.”
And Smith makes one cross on his ballot slip—and so his vote kills mine!

SMITH talks with me in the selfsame way, and he says: “This paving job
is a downright steal, I’m free to say ; and our man’s pledged to play hob
with the deal they’ve made and we ought to stand behind him to a man.”
And I know our man has made a trade—but he’s a Republican.
So I say to Smith: “I’d like to vote for your candidate, that’s flat;
but somehow it sticks fast in my throat, for he is a Democrat.

And you know I belong to the G.O.P.—the party of Lincoln and Blaine—
and it ought to be good enough for me; so I’ll vote her straight again.”
And so we go to the polls and vote for the Gods of the Faith That Is—
it’s not just good; but what’s the odds ?—and so my vote kills his!
NOW Smith and I, we mean all right and we want things on the square;
but when there’s a Regular Party Fight, a man must do his share.

My faith comes down from Fremont’s time and his from Jefferson;
and to cling to an old-time faith’s sublime—no odds how the paving’s done!
Sometimes I think his man’s the best—sometimes he thinks mine is;
but I vote straight, north, south, east, west, and he votes straight for his.
We quite agree on little things, like the taxrolls and the streets,
the city schools, police, white wings, and the health of milk and meats;
but when it comes to matters big, like a Regular Party Plank,
why, Smith is stubborn as a pig and I’m somewhat of a crank.
And we’d like to vote alike—and then we could down the Grafting Crew ;
but we’re both Regular Party Men—so what are we going to do?

Time for a Third Party?

Two Party System
Illustration by B.B. Sams/© SEP.

In the past year we’ve watched Washington, D.C., freeze into paralysis. The wheels of government have nearly ground to a halt as Congress barely even agreed to provide the money for spending already required by laws it had earlier passed. And the inhabitants of the two sides of the political aisle bitterly blame each other. Ask Republican Congressman Allen West who’s at fault, and he says the Democrats who have “a vicious propaganda machine. It espouses lies and deceit.” Ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and it’s entirely the Republicans who stop all progress with “obstructionism on steroids.” Ask the American people, and they agree with both; according to at least one recent poll, they blame the two parties equally. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with our two-party system.

In fact, passing the buck seems to be the only thing the parties can agree on right now. They each agree that the other party is broken. So it’s hardly surprising that there is serious talk of a third-party presidential candidacy this year. Ron Paul, the libertarian Texan, has suggested he may run on his own if he doesn’t win the Republican nomination, and an outfit called Americans Elect has worked quietly but diligently to make sure the paperwork has been done to assure that some third-party candidate can run in all fifty states. Almost everyone is fed up with Democrats and Republicans.

Are we on the verge of the collapse of the two-party system? You might think so, but it has been amazingly resilient, surviving through catastrophes as great as the Civil War and the Depression. The last time a president was elected who wasn’t a member of today’s Democratic or Republican party was in 1848. “E Pluribus Unum” says the motto on the Great Seal—“Out of many, one.” Maybe that should be “Out of many, two.” A recent Gallup poll found that 31 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats and 27 percent as Republicans. Considerably more—40 percent—are independents, disdaining both parties. But that leaves only 2 percent to belong to any other party out there.

How did it get this way? Can it really last much longer? And what, at bottom, do the two parties stand for?

At the very beginning, the founders didn’t want parties, yet we’ve had them almost always since. There seems to be something basic to both human nature and our political system that makes us split along either/or lines. Those either/or lines have shifted and drifted over the centuries, but they’ve almost never not been there.

The electoral college elected the first president, George Washington, in 1788 unanimously. He was so indisputably the right choice that no other candidate was even imaginable. Yet by the time he delivered his farewell address in 1796 near the end of his second term, national unity had so ruptured into two battling sides that he felt compelled to warn of “the alternate domination of one faction over another … a frightful despotism” that would bring “disorders and miseries.” Thomas Paine, on the other side of the new political divide, responded that “the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any.” And that was George Washington he was talking about. The parties have been at each other’s throats since the very start.

At the heart of that gulf, then just as today, lay a tension between wanting a relatively big, active government and wanting a small, unthreatening one. Washington and Alexander Hamilton, his first secretary of the treasury, were among the champions of a nation of strong, well-enforced laws that actively worked to encourage banking and manufacturing and trade. On the other side, Thomas Jefferson idealized a land of free, independent farmers whom government would touch only with the lightest hand. Hamilton’s side became known as Federalists, Jefferson’s as Democratic-Republicans. In 1796, in the first contested presidential election, Jefferson faced off against the Federalist John Adams. The law then stated that whoever got the second-most votes became vice president, so Jefferson had to end up awkwardly serving as his political enemy’s second-in-command.

In 1800 Jefferson won the top job, and in his inaugural address he expressed the hope that the two-party system could become a thing of the past, saying, “We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists.” No such thing happened. However, the Republicans had the upper hand for quite a while, winning the next five presidential elections. The Federalists came to seem elitist, and by 1828 they appeared to be withering away. But in the election that year the Democratic-Republicans split into two factions, creating what became the two parties of the next several decades. Andrew Jackson won in 1828 under the banner of a new Democratic party. He was frontier-born and a war hero, a man of the people, a strong upholder of individual liberties against institutions such as a national bank—and the farthest cry yet from the kind of Virginia aristocracy that George Washington had personified. Jackson’s party grew into the Democratic party we still know today. The other party, the Whigs, was the remnant of the Federalists and less populist Democratic-Republicans.

Not gonna take it: Launched as a tax protest, the Tea Party movement grew into a position of influence in the Republican Party and is poised to break out on its own. Photo by Sage Ross.
Not gonna take it: Launched as a tax protest, the Tea Party movement grew into a position of influence in the Republican Party and is poised to break out on its own. Photo by Sage Ross.

That pairing lasted until the 1840s when the issue of slavery poisoned everything. Think there’s a lack of civility in politics today? Emotions about this issue grew so violent that when Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts angrily denounced slave owners in 1856, Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina beat him almost to death right on the Senate floor. The Whig party split apart and crumbled in the 1850s. After a flurry of short-lived parties with names like Free-Soil and Know-Nothing flared up and died, a new anti-slavery party emerged: the Republicans. It elected its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, and it survives as the Republican party of today.

And so the two parties we still know—Andrew Jackson’s Democrats and Abraham Lincoln’s Republicans—were already in place 150 years ago. They have evolved and changed continually, though. Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century, the Republicans were the party of business and of relatively strong centralized government power, partly because the opponents of slavery had tended to be prosperous citizens of the industrialized, urban North. Meanwhile the South became overwhelmingly Democratic, in opposition to the party that had risen from the antislavery movement. The Democrats were the party not only of the white-dominated South but also of states’ rights and small government and rural interests.

From time to time events shifted the two parties and their relative power. At the turn of the twentieth century a “progressive” movement grew up that sought to clamp down on big business. A Republican progressive, Theodore Roosevelt, served as president from 1901 to 1909, and the Democrats elected their own progressive, Woodrow Wilson, in 1912. But in the boom years of the 1920s, old-fashioned business-friendly Republicans took charge again—until the crash of 1929 and the Depression.

By 1932 Republicans had held the White House for 11 straight years, but the Republican-led boom had turned into a Republican-led bust, and in the depths of the Depression the nation elected a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who would serve until his death in 1945. There would be a Republican in the White House for only eight years between 1933 and 1969. Roosevelt won all but two states in 1936, and the Republican Party appeared to be all but dead.

As the nation fought a world war and climbed out of the economic depths, however, the Republican party slowly healed its wounds. It almost won the White House in 1948 when the Chicago Tribune ran its infamous mistaken “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline. It did take the presidency in 1952, electing the greatest military hero of World War II, Dwight D. Eisenhower. It barely lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960.

The 1960s were a time of tumult for the two parties just as they were for America as a whole. The Vietnam War drove a Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, to announce that he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968, and the agonies of the Civil Rights movement, which he had championed, led many white Southern politicians to abandon the Democratic party just as they had swept into it a century before. From 1969 to 1993 there would be a Democratic president for only four years, during the single, luckless term of the last of the powerful Southern Democrats, Jimmy Carter.

Today the same two parties still dominate the political world in the U.S. The Republicans are broadly seen as the party of business and of less rather than more government action and regulation. The Democrats remain the standard-bearers for organized labor and the entitlements that grew up with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Democrats are generally considered the stronger party among blacks and other minorities as it has been since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s (and it had been gaining ground among those minorities earlier), but since race is a much smaller part of our national politics than it once was, that is less of a defining difference now than in the past.

Populist uprising: Occupy Wall Street protesters made the “99 percent” slogan notorious. Protesters gathered at Zuccotti Park on Wall Street in November. Photo by David Shankbone.
Populist uprising: Occupy Wall Street protesters made the “99 percent” slogan notorious. Protesters gathered at Zuccotti Park on Wall Street in November. Photo by David Shankbone.

Why are the parties getting along so terribly right now? It hasn’t always been this bad. They have sometimes seemed especially polarized and antagonistic but sometimes quite similar and cooperative. They grew somewhat alike during the progressive era; they were bitterly opposed during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. They had much in common during much of the late twentieth century when Republican Richard Nixon carried on some of the Civil Rights initiatives of Democrat Lyndon Johnson and when Democrat Bill Clinton realized some of the welfare-limiting and budget-balancing dreams of Republican Ronald Reagan. Basically, they have tended to move closer together when economic times are good and there is less to drive them apart. Since the Great Recession began in 2008 and economic times turned bad, they have been as sharply divided as ever.

What lies at the base of all their differences, beneath all the individual policy matters they face off about such as abortion and immigration policy and tax breaks for the wealthy and so much else? And what has made them endure for so long? Why do we have two parties instead of three or four or more? There is probably just one answer to all these questions: The parties, at bottom, represent fundamentally opposed basic concepts of government. They stand for government as either essentially good or essentially bad. Americans who believe that government can and must be a powerful force for good tend to be Democrats. Americans who believe that government gets in the way more often than it helps, that it should be as limited and small as possible, tend to be Republicans. Before Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democrats were more the small government party and Republicans the big government one; Roosevelt’s New Deal and the rise of the broad government programs we have had ever since turned that around. The shift of the South from Democratic to Republican in the 1960s and 1970s cemented that change.

However, as dangerously and irreconcilably divided as the parties seem right now, they’re almost certainly not about to crumble. In fact, the sharpest rift right now may be within one of the parties, the Republicans. Since the rise of Tea Party power in the 2010 elections, the Republicans in the House of Representatives have been embattled among themselves, with speaker John Boehner struggling endlessly—often hopelessly— to get them to agree on anything. Similarly, the lead-up to the 2012 Republican primaries has been marked by a stubbornly unyielding polarity between staunchly conservative and Tea Party-favoring candidates like Michele Bachmann and more moderate ones like Mitt Romney. It may be that the Republican party will soon redefine itself, as both parties have so often done in the past, but there’s nothing happening to suggest that we’ll soon have three or four major parties.

Why? Because so much of what people disagree on comes down to that basic tension between big, strong government and small, limited government. And that tension can probably never be finally resolved, at least in a nation that is based on free enterprise and individual liberty and initiative—and that is also based on equal opportunity and equal rights and fairness for all. The division between left and right will probably be with us always. In fact, it has become so central to our national psyche that I’d suggest another way of looking at the great divide, by seeing us all as a great American family with a timeless family dynamic.

If indeed we are in any sense a national family, then maybe, just possibly, in an abstract sense, within that family Republicans are our father and Democrats are our mother. I mean this: Your stereotypical father protects the home fiercely but also expects his children to be strong and resilient and self-reliant and to learn by tough love and end up looking out for themselves, just as Republicans are stereotypically strong on defense and weak on coddling. Your stereotypical mother builds the nest and is nurturing and gives everyone their meal and wants all the children to embrace love and fairness, just as Democrats focus more on supporting workers and striving to lift up the poor and the struggling. It’s no coincidence that it’s mostly Republicans who attack “the nanny state” and Democrats who warn, “Big Brother is watching you.” These are of course clichés, both about mothers and fathers and about Democrats and Republicans. But doesn’t every cliché contain a grain of truth?

And if there is a grain of truth here, then I’d add that just as the traditional ideal of a strong family has two parents, a mother and a father, then perhaps also our nation does best with two parties, Democratic and Republican. They may fight noisily from time to time, but who would have it any other way? Who wouldn’t want to have both kinds of love and care and moral passion? We need them to balance each other and show us the whole range of love and support. The system, like any marriage, and even the institution of marriage itself, may be far from perfect, but what else could possibly be better?

Women of the Roller Derby: Morals, Manners, and Muscle

It was a tough sport born in tough times. The first Transcontinental Roller Derby took place inside the Chicago Coliseum, where 25 couples skated 11.5 hours a day for an entire month! The goal was to skate around an oval track for 3,000 miles—the equivalent of skating from New York to Los Angeles. Periodically, the skaters stopped to race in short sprints called ‘jams.’ The winner of each jam received a cash prize.

Roller Derby was just one more of the endurance contests that drew crowds during the Great Depression. Spectators, many of whom were out of work and available for long hours of watching, identified with the contestants who pushed their bodies beyond endurance for desperately needed cash prizes.

The idea of a skating marathon, or ‘derby,’ wasn’t new. As early as 1885, New York’s Madison Square Garden hosted a six-day race so grueling that two contestants—including the winner of the race—died afterwards.

Roller skating was extremely popular that year, as an item in an ’85 Post reported:

There are about 400 persons engaged in the manufacture of these skates, and the monthly product is not far from 300,000 pairs. The most of these cost about 55 cents a pair…and cost the skater $6. [$150.00 today]

There are about 50,000 rinks in the country, and the demand for skates is greater than the supply. The craze will, of course, die out. [April 18, 1885]

Some Americans worried that any pastime that was so popular, particularly among women, might be immoral. In May, the Post observed:

Roller-skating rinks—and the moral and physical dangers to which they expose especially their younger patrons— is growing a more and more common topic of pulpit and newspaper discussion in nearly every part of the country.

Even the Post editors were concerned about all this roller skating among the young people:

Long before the jammer girls: Ladies' Skating fashions for 1906.

As a vehicle for the promotion of impure associations or unbecoming conduct, it is no better than numberless other methods… for gratifying innate propensities to evil which are bound to find outlets wherever they exist.

What we want is genuine “temperance” in all things. Especially if this be the case with amusements. There is not more reason why people should become intoxicated with these than with alcoholic stimulants.

Wherever roller-skating is practiced, let there be good air, good order, good manners, proper hours, and becoming etiquette in associations, and no fears need exist as to proper, immediate enjoyment or ultimate benefits.

[May 16, 1885]

One editor, however, discovered roller skating had a surprising spiritual benefit.

A Brooklyn preacher has threatened to expel members of his church who visit the skating rink. And yet nothing will bring a man to his knees so quickly as a pair of roller skates.

[Feb 28, 1885]

When the roller-skating derby was revived seventy years later, it had two new, popular features.  The first was brawling; the short jams that peppered the bouts led, dependably, to fighting and tumbling on the track. The second attraction was women—teams of determined women athletes who weren’t shy mixed it up in the pack.

By 1950, the sport was enjoying a post-war revival. Four million Americans bought tickets to derby events that year, as John Kobler reported in a Post article. Another 2,000,000 watched it on television, where it was broadcast as often as five times a week.

The sport may have been co-ed, Kobler wrote, but it was the women who stole the show—iconic crowd favorites like Gerry Murray, ‘Maw’ Bogash, and the appropriately named ‘Toughie’ Brashun.

'Slugger' Kealey promises an opponent, "I'll get you for that."

Brashun, though standing only four feet eleven and weighing in at 119, has a renowned knack of bringing her knee into contact with an opponent’s jaw, looking all the while as guileless as a baby.

The ladies of the oval fear nothing in human form. They play an infinitely rougher, meaner, more vindictive game than the men, and bear grudges for years. Masculine tempers will now and then explode into brawls, but peace is usually restored in the locker room. Not so among the women. They will perpetuate vendettas with the implacability of Corsican bandits. The [league owner] encourages this state of affairs in the interests of showmanship and, if no genuine ill feeling exists, invents it.

The rivalries might have been faked, but there was nothing artificial about the stamina and spirit shown by the women.

When cut, the men sensibly reach for the iodine bottle; when fractured, they submit to X-rays.

The women tend to dismiss such trifles. The New Yorks’ Virginia Rushing—described [by the team owner] as “the debutante type,” —played four months after a pulverizing tumble before a nagging pain persuaded her to visit a doctor. X-rays showed a broken pelvis, the specific treatment for which is absolute immobility. Somehow the break was healing anyway and, after a brief rest, Virginia returned to the melee as sassy as ever. Toughie Brashun once ran a splinter six inches into her thigh, requiring prompt surgery. Hustled off to the hospital against her will, she refused to doff her roller skates either in the ambulance or on the operating table. She was back on the track the same night.

A number of the women skaters are married and have children, but did not let pregnancy interrupt their exertions more than necessary. Quite a few skated into the fifth month. None miscarried.

What leads women, many of whom seem normally feminine and in some instances downright dainty, to spend their lives at this breakneck profession would probably constitute an enlightening psychological study. The phenomenon is easier to understand on the economic level. Twenty per cent of the gross box office goes directly to the players.

Up Next: The Roller Derby Resurgence

Classic Covers: Happy Birthday, J.C. Leyendecker

We’re celebrating the spring birthday of our most prolific cover artist with three very different springtime covers. His 1931 cover we call Queen of Spring is what J.C. Leyendecker (March 23, 1874–July 25, 1951) was known for: an elaborate tapestry of a painting, lush in detail.

Leyendecker also painted delightful cover characters like the very different spring queen on the May 15, 1937, cover: a take-no-prisoners woman ready for spring cleaning.

He was adept at sweet depictions of children, like the two on his April 4, 1908, cover all dressed-up for Easter.

Leyendecker painted covers for a number of magazines in addition to the Post, but perhaps ironically, he is best remembered as the illustrator who created the handsome Arrow Collar Man. But from 1899 all the way through two world wars, he created a glorious body of work for The Saturday Evening Post for which we are most grateful.

Hoot ’n Holler Baby Back Ribs

It’s that time of year again: Birds chirping, plants sprouting, sun shining. Spring is in the air, and that means one thing: time to dust off the grill. This award-winning recipe from Beverly Miller of Amarillo, Texas will help you begin grilling season in style! (Recipe courtesy Pork Advisory Board.)


Hoot ’n Holler Baby Back Ribs

Times

Prep Time: 45 minutes
Cook Time: 30 minutes

Ingredients

Cooking Directions

In a large stockpot, place both racks of ribs; add enough water to cover ribs. Add marinade, bay leaves and onion. Bring mixture to a boil over high heat. (This will create foam on top.) Reduce to medium-low heat; simmer 45 minutes or until ribs are just tender. Remove ribs from cooking liquid; drain on rimmed baking sheet. Heat grill to medium heat (about 350 degrees F.). Meanwhile, in a small mixing bowl, stir together the barbecue sauce and brown sugar. Brush over both sides of ribs. Place ribs on grill, bone side down, close lid. Grill for 7 minutes, turn and grill 7 minutes more. Serves 6 to 8.


Calories: 577 calories
Protein: 28 grams
Fat: 41 grams
Sodium: 1037 milligrams
Cholesterol: 137 milligrams
Saturated Fat: 15 grams
Carbohydrates: 22 grams

Rockwell Ladies in the 1940s

Rockwell, of course, painted so much more than kids. In his fourth decade with the Post, he painted some memorable covers of the fair sex. Some look like “Rockwells” (“The Charwomen” and “First Gown,” for example) and some will surprise you.

Changing a Flat by Norman Rockwell

August 6, 1946

August 3, 1946

How to put together a cover for The Saturday Evening Post: First, get an idea and run it by the art director for approval. Second, find the setting for the scene. Locating a ramshackle cabin in Vermont proved difficult, so Rockwell found a nicely kept hunting lodge and, to say the least, took liberties.

Next, borrow a couple of goats from a neighbor. Finally, choose your models. The lazy, good-for-nothing onlooker on the porch was a friend of the artist who was nothing like the shiftless character portrayed here. The young ladies were daughters of friend and fellow cover artist, Mead Schaeffer. And the landscape? It sprang from the imagination and palette of the artist. “You just couldn’t make it look like Vermont,” Rockwell said, “because in Vermont, they’d yelp.”

Convention by Norman Rockwell

May 3, 1941

May 3, 1941

Rockwell liked faces with “character,” so this pretty young lass is atypical of his models. The scene is somewhat atypical as well—a big city convention. First jobs often consist of being a babysitter or a soda jerk, but a coat rack? Can she remember which black umbrella went with which gentleman?

The Charwomen by Norman Rockwell

April 6, 1946

April 6, 1946

Certainly Rockwell was loved for his paintings of children, but what other illustrator would think of painting two elderly charwomen? Typical Rockwell touches include the minute detail of the patterns on the aprons, a well-worn mop handle, and an environment less than “perfect”—a little debris here and there. That was part of Rockwell’s brilliance—so many artists “cleaned up” the setting, even of kids playing outside.

The ladies in question were well-respected neighbors of the artist, who had reservations about posing as cleaning ladies. Rockwell convinced them they were only acting, and they played their roles very well. They were delighted with the result and said they would pose any time without arguing about the roles to be played. It wasn’t always thus. One matron was “Rockwellized” as a portly maid and never spoke to him again.


The Flirts by Norman Rockwell

July 26, 1941

July 26, 1941

A gorgeous blonde in a convertible? How can it not be love at first sight? Stopped at a red light (which we see reflected in the truck’s mirror), a trucker picks petals to determine if “she loves me” or “she loves me not.” A few questions spring to mind: why did the guy just happen to have a daisy on hand, and how did the lady keep her hat on—never mind her hair perfect—driving an open car? And why, oh why have people complained that this cover is an example of sexual harassment? Oh, please! It’s clearly all in the spirit of fun! (Geez, I thought the blonde in the convertible needed to lighten up…)

Two unique things about this cover: This was the first cover where the artist just used his streamlined initials instead of his full name, and Rockwell played with the masthead as part of the truck signage.

The Decorator by Norman Rockwell

March 30, 1940

March 30, 1940

Another cover that doesn’t look “like a Rockwell.” Hubby’s favorite chair may be in for a bit of spring brightening up, and he may not be pleased with the idea. Or maybe he just wants to enjoy his sports page and pipe in peace.

First Evening Gown by Norman Rockwell

March 19, 1949

March 19, 1949

Far from home in Vermont in late 1948, Rockwell rented a studio while visiting sunny California. Only it wasn’t. That particular winter was rainy, and the poor natural lighting in the studio frustrated the artist to the point that he kept taking this painting into the men’s room to review it in better light. The result, despite the problems, is a delightful bobby soxer checking out her first gown. Somewhere there must be a mother grateful to see the dungarees, loafers and socks disappear, if only for an evening.

Is Now the Right Time to Buy a New iPad?

Apple just announced its brand new iPad, and it’s an absolutely gorgeous piece of computing power. It’s got a stunningly brilliant printed-paper-quality 2084 x 1536 display. It’s got a powerful new 5-megapixel camera, with auto focus and white balance control. It’s even got blazingly fast 4G that you can use as a wireless hotspot, if you’re willing to pay for it. But is it the right tablet for you?

Maybe, maybe not. Before you shell out $499 — or more — for a new tablet, consider whether your new piece of tech is a need … or simply a want.

Why you want to upgrade to the new iPad:

Because the new iPad is darned cool. There’s no way around it: Apple products define cool. You look at those holding iPads on the commuter rail with envy. Your friends — at least your technologically-minded friends — have one. Your kids are going to put it on their holiday shopping list. It’s trendy in a way that no other tablet can hope to match. If staying on top of trends is important to you, then the new iPad is going to be a hands-down must-have gadget.

Because you didn’t buy the iPad 2. If you skipped the iPad 2, this might be a phenomenal time to grab the new iPad. After all, the iPad 2 added a slew of features to the already-awesome original iPad, such as a front-facing camera and a better processor. Since the new iPad adds a whole bunch of features to what you already missed out on, it represents a massive technological leap over what you already own. Faster processor. Better resolution. Better camera. And 4G LTE for faster internet on the go — it’s all pretty hard to beat.

It’s hard to get better. The new iPad has a lot of undeniably cool features, like better-than-HD resolution, a powerful camera, and 4G wireless. These features are so cool, in fact, that it’s hard to imagine the iPad 4 being significantly better on either of these fronts. After all, if your eyes can’t tell the difference, why increase the resolution? Is there any point to putting a better-than-5-megapixel camera in an iPad? And 5G wireless internet is years away — something we’ll likely be enjoying for the first time on our iPad 9s or possibly even iPad 12s.

Of course, that’s not to say there aren’t some avenues where an iPad 4 can better this latest iteration, namely in processor and battery life. But if you keep putting off your purchases by saying “the next one is bound to be better,” you’ll likely never buy another piece of tech in your life.

Why you don’t want to upgrade to the new iPad:

Money is a factor. Clocking in at $499 on the low end, a brand new iPad isn’t within everyone’s budget. And to get the most out of your iPad, you’re probably going to need to shell out a few hundred extra to get the 4G wireless. That’s the bad news. The good news, of course, is that the presence of the new iPad makes the iPad 2 cheaper — both new ($399 from Apple) and used. And if you really want to save some green, check out our selection of the 8 best tablets currently on the market.

You just don’t need a tablet. There’s no denying that iPads are cool. They’re Star Trek-level tech in the palm of your hand. But do you really need one? Probably not — there’s really nothing you can do on an iPad that you can’t already do on an iPhone or a home computer.

You prefer a smaller option. The new iPad clocks in at 9.7″, just like its predecessor. Plus, it’s slightly bulkier than the iPad 2. That’s still small, sure, but if you’re all about portability, the far cheaper Kindle Fire and Nook Tablet both have a real advantage. Besides, it’s rumored that we’ll be getting a smaller, more portable iPad later this year. It may be worth sitting on your hands … for now.

You’re going to do most your computing at home. One of the most compelling features of the new iPad is the higher-speed 4G LTE internet connection that’s usable as a wireless hotspot. It’s really the only must-have new feature — most of the rest merely represents upgrades over what’s already there. If you’re planning on spending most of your time with your new iPad via a WiFi connection, then you don’t really need 4G.

Any piece of brand new Apple technology is hard to resist, and we’re going to have a lot of trouble holding on to our purse strings over the new iPad, even if it is easier than ever to sell our iPad 2s. Still, before you get out that credit card, it’s worth considering that if the existing features of the iPad 2 make you happy, you’ll probably be better off saving up your money for the fourth-generation iPad. After all, it’s only about a year away.


This story originall appeared on Tecca. More from Tecca:

New iPad: Your complete guide to Apple’s newest tablet

Review: The new Apple iPad puts its best face forward

How to sell your old iPad

Cartoons: Retirement

 “And to think we were worried about how he'd handle retirement.” from July/August 1998

"And to think we were worried about how he'd handle retirement."
from July/August 1998

 “He's mostly adjusted to retirement OK, except that keeps sending me memos.” July/August 2000

"He's mostly adjusted to retirement OK,
except that he keeps sending me memos."
from July/August 2000

“I am not a stalker. I'm Morty, your husband, and I retired last Tuesday.

"I am not a stalker. I'm Morty,
your husband, and I retired last Tuesday."
from July/August 2000

 “I'm sorry, you have reached a non-working number.” from March/April 2003

"I'm sorry, you have reached a non-working number."
from March/April 2003

“So, how was your first day of retirement--and what's for dinner?” from July/August 1997

"So, how was your first day of retirement--and what's for dinner?"
from July/August 1997

“Honey…I need a seven letter word for catatonic!!” “R-E-T-I-R-E-D” from January/February 1998

"Honey…I need a seven letter word for catatonic!!"
"R-E-T-I-R-E-D"
from January/February 1998

Conquer Clutter

Clutter, Photo By Hugh Kretschmer
Photo By Hugh Kretschmer.

For some time the least-used part of our house, the basement, had been the cause of the most stress. Strewn about and packed into the sectioned spaces—a finished playroom with two storage rooms on either side with exposed cinderblock walls—were baby furniture and toys, car safety seats, obsolete electronics, boxes of books, cans of paint, camping and sports equipment, bags of jumble, and three boxes containing the entire written and photographic archives of a deceased wing of my mother’s family.

I was all for eBay and turning old stuff into cash, but neither my wife nor I could work up the enthusiasm to act on this idea. The cluttered space below the stairs where neither of us could bear to go slowly began to develop into a field of conflict. The two of us are of a single mind about many things—about most things—but we realized that we differ on stuff. It took us a while to realize this, but one day as we were struggling (okay, arguing) about the functionally cordoned off no-go zone down there, it hit me: I was a hoarder; she was a stockpiler.

There’s a fine distinction. As a hoarder, I can never let things go, sensing either sentimental or monetary value in items that are notable to my wife only because they occupy valuable space. I had boxes of postcards people sent me in the 1980s. I kept computer cables. (Hey, you never knew when they might come in handy.)

As a stockpiler, my wife is a member of a different species entirely. The stockpiler always buys more than he or she needs, then justifies it in economic terms. Buying in bulk saved my wife from having to make multiple trips to Costco and Trader Joe’s, she explained. I understand the argument perfectly when it comes to paper towels, toilet paper, and lightbulbs, but it didn’t explain what looked to me like a lifetime supply of chocolate sauce. The reason for that, she said dismissively as if I were missing the whole point, was that she bought more after forgetting she’d already stockpiled a goodly amount a few months earlier.

Consider the types, though. One is focused on what’s past, the other on the future. So we came to see the basement as being divided between my urgent desire for historical preservation and, well, her grand vision. Or to put it another way, between my junk and her supplies. (“Not my supplies,” she would say, “our supplies,” since I too would use the stocks, including, naturally, the chocolate sauce.)

We agreed we needed to address it, but because it was out of sight we just let it grow. To an outsider, it might have seemed as if we were nurturing an indoor junkyard.

Then I got into a conversation with Richard Lyntton, who had a business to help people deal with their clutter. Lyntton developed his thinking during five years of sharing space with fellow soldiers in the Royal Tank Regiment. “When you’re in such a confined space, it forces you to consider what you truly need,” he told me.

Lyntton sees clutter as more than a matter of just, well, matter. “Most people think of it purely on a physical level,” he said, “but clearing physical clutter is a good place to start clearing your whole mental and spiritual deck. What matters ultimately isn’t the thing itself but that you have a feeling of peace.”

As far as my historical preservation project was concerned, he suggested loading a rented truck and dropping it all at a local thrift store. “Just get rid of it,” he said. “It’s all dead energy. You’ll feel great once it’s gone.”

And so I determined to address the mess. Taking Lyntton’s advice not to procrastinate, I went to the basement without so much as a pit stop at the fridge.

I went down deep. Real deep.

Clutter, Photo By Hugh Kretschmer.
Photo By Hugh Kretschmer.

There were photos, letters from an old girlfriend, schoolwork, and stories and diaries that I felt vaguely embarrassed to read now, as if I were sneaking a peak at someone else’s private life. Other objects, too, cued remembrance of things past, and the experience of poring through the stuff seemed to telescope events, making them appear closer than they had been in years. An old typewriter took me back to my first ambitious—if grandiose—days of writing, blazing away in the basement of my parents’ house.

The act of disposing became by turns emotional, sentimental, and then, finally, cathartic.

Lyntton was right that all the stuff wasn’t just stuff, but it wasn’t “dead” at all. It was a record. Events and relationships had run a course with a beginning, middle, and end. People had married, borne children, divorced, and died.

“If I knew things would no longer be,” says the narrator at the end of the Barry Levinson film Avalon, “I would have tried to remember better.”

I scored my vanity a few times, too, with photos that were like time-lapse shots for a PowerPoint presentation on aging. Which pushed me toward another thought: Where have all the years—my years—gone?

The fear of the future, the unknown, is common enough, but what spurred my fear of the future was how quickly the past had passed. Childhood passes under the pressure of anticipation, slowly while it’s in progress, but as a parent, at least for me, the years have seemed to float up and burst like bubbles. The past was contained in finite objects, and they reminded me of the finitude of time.

Of course, there’s a practical side to it all, too. If the objects help you remember and, so, give a certain shape to your life, they have a totally opposite impact on your digs. They accumulate, time stuffed into a space. A brave few pay $100 an hour to get walked and talked through the process of divesting. Some people are forced to deal with it at certain times, such as when they move or when the spirit moves them, but it’s inevitably left to the people who bury the dead to toss out their junk as well—and to wonder why the heck anyone would keep thus-and-such.

My afternoon of purging passed quickly. The garage filled with stuff that I vowed I would soon take away to the thrift shop or the dump. My wife came home. “Wow,” she said, “you really did some job. You look tired.”
“I feel all cleaned out,” I said.

She surveyed the basement, the cause if not the scene of a few battles. Enough space had been reclaimed that we could find a meeting place somewhere in the middle of the room to start armistice talks. She considered the open space.

“I’d say it looks like we’re about halfway there,” she said.

“I was just thinking the same thing.”


Spring Cleaning Magic

Three rules that will completely change the way you think about clutter—and make it easier for you to let stuff go!

Cleaning house is not just about clearing away the stuff, the experts say. It’s about clearing your mind. The less stuff you have, the more space you have to think. Whole books have been written about cleaning away clutter, but the following principles will save you hours of time (and much agony).

The Six Month Rule: Start in your bedroom and take out every object and article of clothing, says Donna Smallin, author of nine books on eliminating household clutter. Then, one by one, pick up each thing and ask yourself if you’ve used it in the past six months. If you have, put it back. If not, put it in the discard pile. Advance to the next room. Repeat.

The Irreplaceable Objects Rule: Some things—such as vital papers and photographs—can’t be thrown out. Consider scanning paperwork and photos and saving them on your computer. Of course, computers can add another significant layer of clutter. Both the Windows 7 and Apple Lion operating systems will save your files on an external hard drive, and various programs (such as Lucion Technologies’ FileCenter, $49/year, and Carbonite Home, $59/year) allow you to archive material in a way that you can store it safely and out of the way.

The Re-sale Rule: What do you do with the stuff you’ve cleared? Richard Lyntton, our declutter expert, said that trying to make money from it is a mistake. It takes time and a level of commitment that takes you, once again, back to the past from which de-cluttering is meant to liberate you. You’ve already used what you’re getting rid of, so now it’s time to give it away and let that energy go. Pass it on to a local charity or, better still, someone you know who needs it.

Spruce Up Your Home in Minutes

Tactics for emergency cleaning on short notice.

Your friends and family would never just drop in without calling. Except, of course, when they do. Let’s say an old friend or one of your children has phoned that they “just happen” to be in the area—meaning they didn’t want to plan a lengthy get-together but now they want to drop in and be watered or fed.

No, they don’t just want to go to a restaurant. Slight problem: Your place is a mess. You were going to clean tomorrow, but there’s no time for that now. What do you do? Here are some quick-clean tips that will help get you out of a jam.

• Make a Point of Odor. Spray air freshener around. Not too much!

• Clear the Decks. Find an empty box or laundry bin—anything!—and start tossing in loose clothes, candy wrappers, damp bathroom towels, dirty dishes, and the like, writes Sarah Aguirre, on about.com. Fill it up and stick it in the back of the closet. Don’t try to clean the whole house. Just target the most important areas. Where are you going to be hanging out? Living room? Back porch? Hit up these areas and leave the rest.

• Wipe Clean. Spray a rag with a cleaning solution such as 409 or Fantastik if you have it handy (dish soap if you don’t). Wipe down kitchen surfaces first, then bathroom, and finally the dining room table.

• Freshen Up Your Self. Aguirre points out that your visitors are not coming to see your house, really, are they? They’re coming to see you. Look in the bathroom mirror. Brush your hair. Check your clothes. Women, freshen up your makeup; men, if you haven’t done so already, shave.

• Divert Attention. Use something colorful—a plant or a bouquet of flowers or string of Christmas lights—to distract your guests from the less-than-perfect state of your home, says Frayda Kafka, a hypnotherapist based in Lake Katrine, New York. “I throw a brightly colored dish towel over my dishes. Someone looks in my kitchen, they see the red thing and they don’t notice anything else.”

• Dim the Lights. Another way to distract, according to Kafka: Light some candles if you have any. Nothing hides imperfections better than low lighting.

• Finally, Don’t Apologize. “When you do that, you simply call attention to the imperfections that most people wouldn’t notice in the first place,” says Kafka. The house or apartment won’t look perfect, sure. But, this is a triage situation: You are simply striving to make it look presentable.