Posted by: amoralegria on: May 28, 2012
3 julio 2010
El Palacio Real de Madrid fue construido después que un incendio destruyó el primero castillo en 1734. Fue completado en 1760 para el Rey Carlos III. El rey era italiano y les invitó a muchos artistas italianos para contribuir a la construcción y decoración del palacio. Los arquitectos eran Jubara, Sacchetti y Sabatini, y los techos fueron pintados por artistas italianos también. El aspecto general del palacio es de mucho lujo, muy opulento.
Algunos de los frescos en el Salón de los Tronos fueron pintados debajo del techo, en la parte superior de las paredes, sus colores traslapándose con los bordados de oro, dando la impresión que fueron revelados por debajo de la pintura en las paredes. Los mármoles que fueron usados en los portales y en las paredes vinieron de varios lugares de España; cada salón tiene mármol diferente.
Muchos de los salones oficiales son decorados de manera lujosa excesiva. El Salen de Columnas contiene tapices pesados hechos de lana, seda, plata y oro, que eran no solamente para la decoración sino también para calificar a los salones. El diseñador de los apartamentos del rey era Gasparini. Las paredes de cada salón están cubiertas de seda; el primer salón de Gasparini (la Saleta de Carlos III), en el cual las sedas rojas y doradas que cubren a las paredes son iguales a las sedas que cubren a los sofás y que fueron usados para las cortinas. Hay pinturas de alegorías históricas. En el Salón Azul, las sedas en las paredes son azules y doradas y hay retratos de los reyes y reinas pintados por Goya. El tercer salón de Gasparini es tal vez el más lujoso: el techo es decorado en estuco de flores, hojas, frutas y pájaros y en cada esquina hay una pareja china. El piso de este salón combina todos los mármoles españoles. Las paredes se cubren con seda tejida con hilos de oro y hay una araña de luces enorme que se parece una fuente. ¡También en este salón hay bustos escultados hace 2000 anos de los mitos de Cesar Augusto, que fueron excavados en España!
Los últimos reales a vivir en el Palacio Real eran los abuelos del rey actual, Juan Carlos. La familia de Juan Carlos prefiere alojamiento menos lujoso y hoy en día el palacio es propiedad pública.
Posted by: amoralegria on: May 28, 2012
I love to travel and have had many experiences that I have recounted in personal and email journals. In July 2010, my husband and I went with a group of students on a Study Abroad Program in Spain. I wrote many journal entries and essays, and now have decided to post them here.
The journal entries are in English for the most part; the essays are primarily in Spanish because those of us who were advanced students were required to write in Spanish about the places that we were required to visit. Since I already spent a good deal of time writing them and looking up words in my English-Spanish dictionary, I have no desire to translate them back to English!
Another thing I need to mention is that four of my email journals were lost when my computer was hacked into shortly after we returned. I asked people that I had sent them to, to please forward to me whichever of the journals they had kept, so I managed to retrieve all but four of them. Instead, for the missing pieces, I will post some of my pictures and write briefly about them.
Two years have passed since this trip and my memory is somewhat faulty. However, I have long had the goal to make a major part of my blog into an account of my travels; so finally I am getting started!
Posted by: amoralegria on: May 26, 2012
It is too hard to pick just one photo! However, there is one constant theme of my summer every year: a relaxing week or two at the cottage, our summer home in northern Wisconsin. These pictures were all taken in the area last summer.

I love rain and thunderstorms at the cottage. I wanted to capture the patterns of circles made by the raindrops. I added a little more contrast to bring it out more.
Posted by: amoralegria on: July 3, 2011
What does freedom mean? People talk about freedom all the time,
but what does it mean in real life? Is a person who has a job truly free? What about the responsibilities of having a family or a friend? It’s one thing to be free to make a choice, but after a choice is made, are we truly free anymore?
“Freedom” is a very broad term, and one that people throw around all the time without really understanding it. Politicians use it to defend wars: “We’re fighting for our freedom” when actually most modern wars primarily affect people in the
country in which the war is being waged. I would even say that, used this way,
it CURTAILS our freedom because by spending billions of dollars on a war whose
only “freedom” for us is an unlimited source of oil, for example, that money could
have been used to enhance our freedom at home: freedom to get a good education,
freedom to choose a job based on interest rather than the need for health insurance
benefits, etc.
On the other hand, freedom in a national sense is the way we tend to view the
world: there are countries with freedom and countries without freedom. But who
determines which is which? If we leave it up to political pundits, we might
never understand what freedom means ourselves. (Of course, people have the
freedom to believe the pundits if they wish).
I do think that some countries have more freedom than others. In some countries, if you write a letter to someone, the government may read and censor what you
wrote. If you criticize the local government for not fixing potholes in the
street, you could get in trouble – even if not, the atmosphere is such that
people are afraid to speak their minds on even such minor subjects. In some
countries, you are not allowed to practice the religion of your choice, or go
wherever you want to go. In Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive!
In dictatorships, a lot of people live in fear, which curtails their freedom. They
may be free to have whatever they want to eat, or free to give birth, etc. -
personal things, but not having what we call “First Amendment Rights”
I would say that means those people are not really free.
Freedom, however, doesn’t mean that you can do whatever you want to do all the time. Like the second part of the prompt question asked, after you make a choice (and are bound by it), are you still free? I would say yes, because freedom to me
means to have the ability to choose your path in life. Life is a series of
choices and decisions, both good and bad, so even if you have made a choice
that limits you in some way, you still are free because it was YOUR choice. There may be consequences, but these also may involve decisions you have the freedom to make.
However, without freedom, your choices are limited or restricted by external forces – an oppressive government, the lack of money, people who carry concealed guns wherever they go, laws which may not allow a woman to travel freely or go out in public unveiled, etc. Are Americans more free than Arabs? Are rich people more free than poor people? If so, it should not be so.
I believe that freedom is always limited to staying within the law or following
the rules (because if you don’t, you might go to jail!). We are free to break
the rules, but then we must suffer the consequences of doing that. Most people
choose to live within a set of rules because it is what holds us together as a
society and because we are all interdependent: what I do affects you, what you
do affects another person, what another person does affects me, etc. We do not
have the freedom to deny freedom to someone else, if that person has not
infringed on our freedom or anyone else’s.
So, for example, I have the freedom to live the lifestyle I choose, AS LONG AS it
doesn’t hurt anyone else. If persons who are gay wish to get married, they
should have the freedom to do so. This doesn’t affect anyone else’s marriage.
It might violate their moral code – which they have the freedom to have – but they
can apply this moral code to their own lives and leave gay couples alone.
Freedom means being able to seek a partner, and to find love. Forcing someone
to hide their love or to act like they are something they are not, curtails
that person’s freedom.
There are many other personal/moral issues that are being discussed in the national forum, which are really personal freedoms that the government in a free society should not take away.
Again, freedom does not give a person or a government the right to infringe upon or to curtail the freedom of others. My freedom ends where yours begins, as is often said. It doesn’t mean I can get a gun and shoot someone. It doesn’t mean I can hurt someone with my words, such as being rude, impolite, or insulting. Some
people are offended by swearing, so perhaps in public others should make an
effort not to swear. I remember once seeing a sign along a trail in Hawaii that
warned people against nudity on the beach, so as not to curb the freedom to
enjoy it for those who don’t wish to see naked bodies. If you want the freedom
to go nude on the beach, there are plenty of designated nude beaches!! Too many
people these days think that freedom gives them the right to “express
themselves” by swearing loudly on a bus or wearing pants that show their
underwear, or worse, their butt. That’s not freedom, that’s just ugly and offensive.
Another very important issue today involving the meaning of freedom is equating “free speech” with money. The more money you have, according to some (including, apparently, 5 members of the Supreme Court), the more freedom of speech you have a right to. I do not believe that the Founding Fathers, when they wrote, “We the people” meant “we the millionaires, billionaires and multinational
corporations”. One could argue that in the 1700s many people were excluded from
the freedoms set out in the Constitution, but we have supposedly evolved as a
nation to include everyone in these freedoms: people of color, Native
Americans, women, gays, poor people, middle class and rich people. Everyone
should have equal access to the freedoms our Constitution guarantees. No one
group has the freedom to restrict the freedom of the others. Read Animal Farm!
There is much polemic today about the meaning of freedom and during this season in which we celebrate our freedoms – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – everyone should be mindful of the true meaning of freedom. It is not limitless; nothing ever is.
Posted by: amoralegria on: July 1, 2011
I reached into my box of prompts and pulled one out. Practice writing
synethsesia today by giving something colorless (hunger, panic, laughter, etc.) color, and describing it.” OK, here goes.
Rudeness is brown.
I have nothing against the color brown; in fact, I rather like it. Brown
shoes go with everything; brown clothes can be smart and fashionable, brown is
functional. Brown is part of nature, mingling with green in trees and in
gardens. In fact, even this blog is brown!
Rudeness, my pet peeve is brown because I remember a rude person wearing a brown shirt stretched over her overweight frame. It looked terrible on her, which was fitting. When another representative of rudeness once came into my classroom to express her feelings about an email I sent, or when she passed in the hallway and wouldn’t say hello, I have no idea what she was wearing, yet somehow I can picture her wearing a brown top. One that made her look fashionable, yet casual.
Superior.
Rudeness is brown because there are many ugly things that are brown. Brown has many manifestations: reddish brown, dark brown, shirt-color brown, brown turning to black, brown turning to yellow.
Brown mixed with blood.
Brown is a careless mixture of several colors, a failed experiment in mixing colors
to make another, prettier color. Rudeness is a careless choice of words, smeared
over a beautiful person made to feel ugly.
Brown was the color of a lot of the paint spilled in my classroom because it was used to paint buildings: smears of brown on the cabinets, on the floor, in the sink,
on the wall, brown paint that was not cleaned up but instead left to me.
Brown dripping down the side of my desk. A thick brown mass sliding downward,
threatening to reach the bottom, gathering strength as it moves, like thick lava
from a volcano; rudeness gathering negativity as it flows and threatens to
engulf its victim. Lava is red, but it’s also brown, because there is a little
bit of brown in every red, every orange, every yellow. A hint of brown just
under the surface of brightness – a few drops of the wrong color brings it out.
Bright colors tinged with brown, like beautiful things with a subtle hint of something wrong, negative or intimidating.
Fallen leaves, once golden, or flaming red, or mottled green orange and yellow, curl up and die, becoming brown. Those leaves that once held beauty, the promise of happiness, are now discarded, dead, brown. They are scattered with the wind or
gather in clumps, their potential forgotten. Like rudeness: meant to make someone
feel discarded, disregarded, trampled underfoot, crushing egos.
Rake up those leaves and pile them up, like insults. Light a match and watch them
burn.
Posted by: amoralegria on: June 18, 2011
When I was a kid and got mad at someone – usually my brother – I would either complain to someone (my parents or one of my sisters) or I would retreat into my room and put on some music. Often I would write about it in my diary, which always helped calm me down.
I’m not so different today – I deal with anger usually by trying to remove myself from the situation if possible. If I’m home, I’ll go out for a walk. In the past, I went out to my car, intending to take a drive, with disastrous results: I was so mad that I didn’t concentrate on my driving, and once I backed right into a cement post! Another time, I hit a telephone pole at the end of my driveway! So I don’t get into my car when I’m still at the height of my anger. Taking a walk is safer, and I can breathe fresh air and enjoy nature. This is great in good weather, but I don’t have this option if there is a storm or it’s really cold out. Where I live, this is half the year!
If I’m at work, I will vent to a friend if I can; otherwise, I hold it in until I’m in my car on the way home. In the car, I will tell off the person I’m mad at! I just say exactly what I feel out loud where no one can hear me but myself. Both of these things help to calm me down somewhat, but there are problems with each.
If I vent to someone, I feel guilty for unloading my problems on that person; I often feel as though I lean on a few good friends too much, expecting them to listen to my problems. I apologize every time, but they always say it’s OK (of course – they’re my friends; but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it really is OK). However, talking to a friend helps because usually that person has a different perspective on the situation or at least will provide me some sympathy. I sometimes worry that if I do this too often, that person will no longer want to be my friend. So I try to keep my venting to myself as much as possible.
Telling someone off in my car is good therapy, perhaps; but because there isn’t anyone there to hear me, I sometimes have trouble calming down with no one else to soothe my ego. If I’m really angry because of something unjust that someone has done to me, telling the person off in my mind sometimes gets me even more riled up!
In the end, the best thing is WRITING. I have filled many pages of my journal (just as I did as a kid except now I use a computer) with descriptions of situations that have happened at work or at home that either made me angry or depressed. If I’m at work and simply have to write a rant, I put in a flash drive and save the rant to the flash drive so that there is absolutely no record of it on my workplace computer that someone could possibly find later.
These written rants are probably the most therapeutic means I have to deal with my anger; plus they provide a record that I can look back at later, when I have a calmer perspective on the situation. Sometimes, after reading them, I feel embarrassed about how ridiculous I sounded! But that’s OK – it’s my private journal and that’s what journals are for. These angry writings may provide fodder for a story I’m writing someday; when the character I’ve created gets angry, I have plenty of examples of what that’s like!!
Posted by: amoralegria on: June 16, 2011
Yesterday I was reading an article from last Sunday’s Daily
Herald, (Healthy Pets section, June 12, 2011) entitled “Dogs vs cats: Your
choice says a lot about you.” I was interested in this article because I have
long had a theory about men and women and dogs and cats. My theory has to do with
why people prefer a dog or a cat and what that says about their attitudes
toward women.
From my unscientific observations, it seemed to me that more men liked dogs than
cats. Cat people were much more often women than men. Men who didn’t like cats
said that cats weren’t friendly, they were aloof and even mean. Some men were
even afraid of cats. Men preferred dogs, I thought, because dogs are by nature
loyal and companionable. In the wild, dogs are pack animals and so they are
wired to prefer the company of groups. When domesticated, dogs became faithful
companions because they view the human as being the “alpha” or leader, and most
will easily submit to a human master’s wishes but be happy about it.
This fits with what a man likes to have in a woman – a loyal companion who is
willing (at least traditionally) to take a subservient role. Even if men today
aren’t overtly sexist, many still seem to have the need to dominate, or at
least to lead. They prefer a woman to be dependent on them, because it
validates them somehow.
More women like cats than men do (I am not saying that more women like cats than
dogs) because women accept cats for who they are; and women who are cat people
admire the grace and beauty, the independence and perhaps even the aloofness of
cats. Cats can also be affectionate companions, but on their own terms. I think
women who like cats admire these qualities and either aspire or have achieved
them. Blind loyalty is not a desired characteristic – earned loyalty is. Cats
will give you their loyalty if you have shown that you deserve it and have
inspired their confidence. Cats don’t “need” people the way dogs do. Another
reason women may prefer cats to dogs is that cats are less work. Women’s lives
are generally very busy and adding a needy dog to their daily chores may be
highly undesirable.
Therefore, when a woman meets a man who is a professed cat-person, she should take notice: this man is worth getting to know – he is not like all the others! Blind
loyalty is not as important to him and what he admires in a pet is more likely
to be what he admires in a woman as well: independence, loyalty that is earned,
grace and beauty.
Of course, this does not mean that men who are dog-people are all alike and want
to dominate women. In fact, if a man says he prefers dogs it may be because he
doesn’t really know much about cats except what the stereotypes say: they are
aloof and unfriendly. In this case, a cat-owning woman may “convert” a man into
a cat-person or at least one who enjoys both kinds of pets equally for their
unique qualities.
However, I do believe that a man, unless he is allergic to cats, who absolutely REFUSES to see the good qualities of cats, is much more likely to be sexist and to want a woman he can dominate, a woman that is not a “threat” to his masculinity.
I admit that my “theory” relies on generalizations and stereotypes, and that
modern men are not as sexist as they were in the past. My niece’s husband, for
example, is clearly a dog person, but not sexist – if he were, I don’t think she
would have married him. But perhaps he would be willing to accept a cat as a
pet as well; circumstances (such as her allergies) just do not allow it.
So when I read this article, I wanted to see if my theory were validated by
scientific research. The article says:
A team of researchers at the University of Texas, led by psychologist Sam
Gosling, found that those who define themselves as “dog people” are more
extroverted, more agreeable and more conscientious than their feline-loving
counterparts.
Agreeable?? Cat people are not as agreeable? I beg to differ. But I read on…
Self-described “cat people”, by contrast, are more open, more creative and less traditional but also more neurotic.
Oh, well, open and creative, less traditional – OK, now this team of researchers
seems less biased toward dog people. These characteristics do describe me.
Neurotic?? OK, I admit it.
The article goes on to say that stereotypes have long pegged dog lovers as more social and interactive with a craving for adoration – think pack leader – while cat people often are seen as reclusive or loners with a sensitive streak – think crazy cat lady – but this research is the first of its kind to offer hard data on the two personality types.
“Dog people” – based on how people identified themselves, not on what animals they actually own – tend to be more outgoing and social, whereas “cat people” are more curious, creative and philosophical.”
Hmmm, I’m beginning to like this study!!
Pet owners seem to agree with this idea, the article says, and that neither one is
better than the other – they are just different. The author quotes Peg
Silloway, who wrote a book called “The Cat Lover’s Book of Days: A Year of Cat
History, Lore and Laughter.” She says that dog people do in fact enjoy the
adoration and unquestioning loyalty of a dog and that people were are always
part of a group (social) have the pack mentality of dogs. Cat people, Silloway
says, enjoy a pet that doesn’t need them but is a loving and loyal companion to
a person who has earned its trust and affection.
Gosling affirms that there may be significant differences in personality traits between
dog people and cat people, and that these traits make a dog or a cat a more
suitable pet to each. The temperament and needs of the pet play a big part in a
pet lover’s preference.
Dog lovers say: dogs are loyal and affectionate, and don’t need litter boxes.
Cat lovers say: cats are independent, quiet and clean.
Dogs require you be their leader and demand attention, while cats, being lower
maintenance pets, are better for independent people who are always on the go. Kelly
Meister says in her blog “Kelly’s Critter Talk” writes that it is possible that
cat lovers’ relationship with their cat is “uncomplicated” and that cats “seems
willing to take whatever we do offer, in terms of time and energy, without
complaining.”
I don’t know if I agree with the above statement. Cats get upset if you are gone
too long or if you neglect them, and they show it by soiling your bed, your
carpet, or your couch, instead of their litter box. They may also give you “the
look” when you come home after an extended absence, and run away from you,
unlike their usual greeting when you get home of rubbing themselves against
your leg and purring.
In Gosling’s study, over 4,500 people were asked whether they were dog people, cat
people, neither or both and were rated on five personality characteristics:
openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism.
Neuroticism was defined as “emotional sensitivity and the ability to experience
unpleasant emotions easily.”
Here’s how the percentages in the study broke down:
46% were dog people
12% were cat people
28% said they were both
15% said they were neither
I would have been interested to know what percentage of each were men or women.
Using a 44-point assessment, the article concludes, dog people scored higher on extroversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and cat people scored higher on openness and neuroticism.
I do believe that my unscientific and biased theory, based on the findings stated
in this article, does have some merit. And I do agree that I am definitely a
cat person as defined in Gosling’s study. If social means always being part of
a group, that may be something I’ve always aspired to, but the fact is that in
the end, I have fewer friends than such people. It seems to me that “social” people who feel a strong need to always belong to a group are susceptible to getting involved in cliques. I strongly dislike cliques and try to avoid them. Perhaps that is why I seldom find myself a part of a “social group” in spite of a longing to be a part of one.
Post-a-day (July 4) If I could say what’s in the Constitution…
Posted by: amoralegria on: July 6, 2011
Prompt: If you started your own nation, what rules would be in your constitution? What country would you model your rules after?
My Constitution would be mostly the same as the United States, with a few changes, deletions and additions:
1. Get rid of the Electoral College. It’s obsolete. The people need to have the
right to a direct vote for their leaders.
2. There should be a Labor Code that guarantees paid time off, paid maternity
leave and a set number of hours to work per week (above that would be
overtime). – This is not radical – we are the only 1st world country that
doesn’t have at least two of these things.
3. Single payer health care for all.
4. Clarification of the 2nd amendment, that it doesn’t mean everyone has the
right to own a gun, only the military and police, rifles for hunters. Anyone
else would have to go through a rigorous and national background check.
5. Public financing of elections and/or a limit to how much a candidate can
collect and spend on her/his campaign.
6. Guaranteed free and equal public education for all at least through high
school.
7. An energy policy that would require research and development of “clean”
sources of energy, and penalties for polluters.
Sound like it would cost too much money to do all these things? There would
also be a provision that would outline a fair tax policy:
8. People making more than a million dollars would pay a higher percentage of
their income with no loopholes. (I’d like to say billionaires should pay more
but I don’t even think any one person should earn that amount – it’s obscene).
Large corporations that have a profit margin of a certain amount (not percent)
would pay more in taxes. However, if the corporation used the revenue to
reinvest in their business which would benefit the company, its employees and
the economy as a whole, they would not pay as much.
9. There would be a very hefty penalty for a company to relocate overseas. This
penalty would be distributed to the displaced workers in the U.S.
10. People making below a certain amount (which would change over time – $100k
doesn’t mean today what it did, say, 30 years ago) would pay less in taxes.
11. Amending the Constitution would require what it currently requires.