I slept great last night.
Went to bed at 10pm and didn’t wake up until 4:40am. After a quick trip to the bathroom I was back
in bed and didn’t wake up until 6:45.
Last night I googled BLU N5C820T and it turns out that’s the
battery that fits the “Original BLU Jenny cell phones” ONLY. (Later Reina told me she recommended I get a
Nokia cellular phone from Exito.)
It’s been 1 month since my last haircut. I’m probably going to be okay for another
week or two.
Yesterday I sent John William a copy of a letter from one of
the expats about why people from the US of A can refer to themselves as
Americans. Here’s a copy in case you are
interested:
AMERICAN?
When speaking of the nationality
of a people, the descriptive term "American or Americano" is
generally accepted to only refer to those citizens of the United States of America.
There are some people, for whatever reason, who would like to deny to
"Americans" the right to use that name under the rationale that all
peoples from the "Americas"
are also "Americans". These same people would describe
"Americans" (as I use the term) as "Norte Americanos" or
Estado Unidenos". Let's see how this holds up under some type of
logical test other than just some attempt at political correctness.
First, let's set aside the fact that 5 billion of the world's population unquestionably understand that when someone is described as an "American" that they are being referred to as citizens of the United States of America, and limit our discussion strictly to the western hemisphere which is referred to as "The Americas" (note the plural).
Depending on one's point of reference, we can view the western hemisphere as one continent, "America"; two continents, "North and South America"; or three continents by including "Central America". These terms, however, are only descriptive of geographical areas and have nothing to do with citizenship.
Now let's get to the nitty gritty of it. To use the term "Norte Americanos" to describe those peoples from the USofA, does an injustice to our Canadian (or Canadiene) friends to the north and our Mexican friends to the south because they, too, are Norte Americanos. So while Americanos are also Norte Americanos, that term is not definitive enough to describe citizenship. Actually by some definitions Norte Americanos would also include Panameños.
Well that didn't work very well, so let's take a look at using the term "Estado Unidos" to see if that will be descriptive enough to define those peoples of the USofA. Now the problem here is that there is both The United States of America and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. OOOPs, you say, there are two "Estados Unidos", how do we resolve this quandary? It would seem to me that dropping the "Estados Unidos de" and simply using "Mexico" and "America" makes good sense to differentiate between those two countries, certainly Mexico has not had a problem doing that, but for some reason when Americans want to do the same thing there is a hue and cry from some segments of society.
O.K., it seems that we still have a problem satisfying everyone, so let's look at the complete names of countries and see if we can find some guidance there. For instance, in Panama (as I'm sure it is throughout most of Latin America) citizenship for Americans is shown on documents as "EEUU", which, of course, refers to "Estado Unidos" (although it would seem to be more descriptive of the European Union), but then we saw the problem that that had in regards to Mexico. However, if we use the same nomenclature in describing countries then Panama would be known as "La Republica de" and would not be allowed to include the name by which it is known throughout the world, Panama. That is ridiculous, of course, but no more ridiculous than denying America the right to be called by the name it is known throughout the rest of the world. I might further add that while there are numerous countries in the world which are known as "The Republic of xxxxxxxxx", there are at least two that are known as "The United States of xxxxxxxxxx", but only one which includes the name "America" and, if memory serves me correctly, it is the oldest continuous government in the western hemisphere.
One thing I would like to add is that for those who would deny to Americans the right to describe themselves as Americans by stating that they, too, are Americans, go to any other part of the world and make that claim. I'm afraid that people will only laugh at you, at best, or call you a liar and ridicule you at worst.
So when I say: "Soy Americano" most people understand and accept that.
Soy Americano, pero soy Colombiano en mi Corazon.
First, let's set aside the fact that 5 billion of the world's population unquestionably understand that when someone is described as an "American" that they are being referred to as citizens of the United States of America, and limit our discussion strictly to the western hemisphere which is referred to as "The Americas" (note the plural).
Depending on one's point of reference, we can view the western hemisphere as one continent, "America"; two continents, "North and South America"; or three continents by including "Central America". These terms, however, are only descriptive of geographical areas and have nothing to do with citizenship.
Now let's get to the nitty gritty of it. To use the term "Norte Americanos" to describe those peoples from the USofA, does an injustice to our Canadian (or Canadiene) friends to the north and our Mexican friends to the south because they, too, are Norte Americanos. So while Americanos are also Norte Americanos, that term is not definitive enough to describe citizenship. Actually by some definitions Norte Americanos would also include Panameños.
Well that didn't work very well, so let's take a look at using the term "Estado Unidos" to see if that will be descriptive enough to define those peoples of the USofA. Now the problem here is that there is both The United States of America and Los Estados Unidos de Mexico. OOOPs, you say, there are two "Estados Unidos", how do we resolve this quandary? It would seem to me that dropping the "Estados Unidos de" and simply using "Mexico" and "America" makes good sense to differentiate between those two countries, certainly Mexico has not had a problem doing that, but for some reason when Americans want to do the same thing there is a hue and cry from some segments of society.
O.K., it seems that we still have a problem satisfying everyone, so let's look at the complete names of countries and see if we can find some guidance there. For instance, in Panama (as I'm sure it is throughout most of Latin America) citizenship for Americans is shown on documents as "EEUU", which, of course, refers to "Estado Unidos" (although it would seem to be more descriptive of the European Union), but then we saw the problem that that had in regards to Mexico. However, if we use the same nomenclature in describing countries then Panama would be known as "La Republica de" and would not be allowed to include the name by which it is known throughout the world, Panama. That is ridiculous, of course, but no more ridiculous than denying America the right to be called by the name it is known throughout the rest of the world. I might further add that while there are numerous countries in the world which are known as "The Republic of xxxxxxxxx", there are at least two that are known as "The United States of xxxxxxxxxx", but only one which includes the name "America" and, if memory serves me correctly, it is the oldest continuous government in the western hemisphere.
One thing I would like to add is that for those who would deny to Americans the right to describe themselves as Americans by stating that they, too, are Americans, go to any other part of the world and make that claim. I'm afraid that people will only laugh at you, at best, or call you a liar and ridicule you at worst.
So when I say: "Soy Americano" most people understand and accept that.
Soy Americano, pero soy Colombiano en mi Corazon.
I had sent a copy of this to John yesterday and he actually
answered the author and sent me a copy.
Not only is it obvious it wasn’t written by an America, but
because of the slightly complicated issue, his point isn’t understandable. He told me he was translating a letter from
Spanish to English for a friend so when I saw him on the way to Exito this
morning I asked him if I could see it. I
told him his American letter needs a
little work but first we should start with something a little lighter. I’m going to meet with him at 2pm to discuss
his translation. Even though I don’t
know what the original letter means in Spanish I can still critique his usage
of English.
A guy wearing a light brown and dark brown uniform with EPM
on it slipped something under everyone’s door across the street. Bills maybe?
A couple of minutes later I see he stopped by our apartment. I ran downstairs and sure enough both my EPM
and UNE bills were there just inside the front door. That’s punctual. I got my last set of bills on May 15th
so maybe they come out exactly on the 15th of every month. My utility bill is down 58% but my
communications bill actually went up 27%.
It can’t be because of TV or telephone usage because I don’t have either. It must be due to internet usage. At least I’m getting a much better idea of
what I need to budget for each month!
Maybe if I unplug the router every night it will cut down on my monthly
bill.
At 10am on my way to Viva Mall I saw the pretty lady only
this time she was walking a different much larger dog. At Viva I saw 3 Circular 303 buses sitting
there with no passengers and no drivers.
The Circular 303 bus should go right by Carrefour 65 where I’m to meet
Reina at 11am. After 10 minutes, and no
change in the situation, I took a taxi for 5mil. I stopped at Home Center
first to see what they might have that’s on my shopping list. At 11:45 I headed across the parking lot to
Carrefour to wait for Reina. She showed
up right on time (and I paid 10mil for her taxi) and we went into Carrefour
itself to see what they might have in pet carriers. (BTW, Carrefour is now Jumbo as I guess they
got bought out by another company.) They
didn’t have anything so we went to the pet store where we found a nice pet
carrier for 90mil.
I made a trip to the ATM to pay for the pet carrier and a
little shopping I needed to do. I bought
a Soap dish 4,790 ($2.66), toothpicks 1,590 (88 cents), another small bucket
11,500 ($6.39), and “super glue” 4590 ($2.55).
I paid 90mil ($50) for the carrier for Angel and 10mil
($5.56) for some monthly medicine. We
took a taxi for 10mil ($5.56) to Laureles Mall to meet Jesus. I bought lunch for Reina for 24mil ($13.33);
10mil ($5.56) for Jesus; and 12mil ($6.67) for lunch for me.
Back at the apartment Jesus sanded down the sharp corners of
my bed and lowered my drapes. I also
asked him if he could build me a chess table.
I gave him the pictures and dimensions of the table I used to have in my
townhouse. He said he could do it in
8-10 days for $160. (While Jesus was
working on these projects Reina mopped the whole apartment and washed a pair of
my shorts. It’s been 6 weeks since she
moved out and I really haven’t kept up with the cleaning.)
Jesus said he would need a 200,000 ($111.11) advance for
materials so we went to Viva and I withdrew the money for him.
I gave Jesus 20mil for the work he did today and Reina 20mil
for her taxi. Then I went home until I
met John at his office at 5pm. We
practiced English with one of his students for about 15 minutes, I critiqued a
couple of letters he had translated and then we went to the corner snack shop
where I had my first taste of Tamal (It’s a tamale!) for 5 mil ($2.78) with a
mango juice for 1mil (56 cents) and a bag of potato chips for 2mil ($1.11). To add to my dinner I had a bowl of cereal
when I got back to the apartment.
When I got back to the apartment I was happy to see a an early Happy Father’s Day greeting from my
son!
No comments:
Post a Comment