At this time in my life, when I am all but retired and still fighting to stay in the game, somehow, I came to the attention of CUTVnews Radio and their series “EMPOWERING WOMEN”.  Tomorrow, I will be interviewed live by Jim Masters about my life on the radio.  It will air at 10:00 a.m. EST.  That will be 4:00 p.m. here in Nice.  This is the direct link to the show, if you are interested.  I have no idea what will happen, but I can tell you this!  It will be fun!  I LOVE doing things like this.  


Best, Jay



AS 2019 BEGINS…..

80+ in France "Empowering Women"!

One of the wonderful things about living in Nice, France, at the age of 81, is that everything is new.  It all is different.  Now, you would think that would make me feel insecure, longing for the familiar, the tried, the true.  Quite the contrary.  It makes every day interesting. 

I will admit that I was not ready to “retire”.  I thrived on work, on being busy.  I loved having the best at my disposal.  If it were theatre, I had the Music Center.  If it were golf and a Palm Desert retreat, I had the best at my disposal an hour-and-a-half away.  If it were film – Hey, it was LA!!  Premiers down the street in Westwood.  If it were hobnobbing with attorneys, I had CAALA, CELA, and the Los Angeles and Beverly Hills Bar Associations for MCLE (continuing education) and mixing and mingling.  Casting directors, The Actors Studio…

View original post 844 more words


jinx with lucy
betty furness
When I married Darrell MacIntyre at the end of my sophomore year, that all changed.  He was a graduating senior from Madison, Wisconsin, with aspirations of becoming a lawyer. 
Two years later, I found myself at the University of Georgia with the beginnings of a family.  I just wanted to get my degree at that point – in something, preferably in Speech.  Darrell was in Law School.  So, at Registration, I was sent to the Department of Speech and Drama.  When I talked to Registration, I told them about my major in Speech at Wisconsin.  They said that would be the Department of Journalism at UGA, and there were prerequisites – journalism 101, 102, etc.  I did not have that kind of time so I enrolled in the Department of Speech and Drama. That would let me get a degree in the shortest amount of time.  During those days, if women had a family, they were “supposed” to stay home and tend to the children.  Ugh.  Not me!!!  
What happened?  LIFE HAPPENED!!  I have written a book about some of the things that happened.  “Janet Tallulah”.  
jaywmacintosh_jay w. macintosh
Over the years, I have not enjoyed “Pundit” shows.  In fact, most of them drive me crazy.  Steve watched them incessantly.  Ugh.  But Christiane’s CNN program, I enjoy. 
This fall, one of her guests was a writer of a novel “The Law of Unintended Consequences.  John Ross. The book was listed by The New York Times Sunday Book Review as one of the most sought after out-of-print books of 2013. The cover has Lady Justice being assaulted by an ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) agent. 
I have not read the book but I was immediately interested in the sociological concept. It reminded me of an article I read pointing out that relatively minor incidents in Europe (in the early 1900’s) resulted in helping to cause World War I.  I decided learn more about the Law of Unintended Consequences and WWI, especially since Nice has a lot of WWI Monuments and plaques around town. 

This is what I read in Wikipedia:

“Scholars doing short-term analysis focused on the summer of 1914 ask if the conflict could have been stopped, or whether it was out of control. The immediate causes lay in decisions made by statesmen and generals during the July Crisis of 1914. This crisis was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Bosnian Serb who had been supported by a nationalist organization in Serbia. The crisis escalated as the conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia came to involve Russia, Germany, France, and ultimately Belgium and Great Britain.”
A nationalist organization in Serbia assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. That incident resulted in conflict between countries that resulted in World War I.  Intensity, then High ImpactUnintended Consequences.   On a World level, is that what is happening now?
Ross’ book continues by pointing out that unintended consequences can be grouped into three types:
  • Unexpected benefit: A positive unexpected benefit , also referred to as luck, serendipity or a windfall.
  • Unexpected drawback: An unexpected detriment occurring in addition to the desired effect of the policy.
  • Perverse result: A perverse effect contrary to what was originally intended – when an intended solution makes a problem worse. 

On a personal level, that concept has applied to most of my life. Gives me a lot to think about. Of course, I know how the things listed below turned out.  Personal decisions that had unintended consequences.  Things that come to mind for me – in a nutshell – that may or may not be developed on another day, are the following:

1) Trying to get two of my GHS friends to like me by taking a cigarette so that I could join them outside in order to feel “included”;

2) Choosing University of Wisconsin right out of Gainesville High School, Gainesville, Georgia because it was a good school located on two lakes, part of the Big Ten, had red and white colors, and its school song was “On Wisconsin”; (Sigh)

3) Pledging Kappa Alpha Theta instead of Kappa Kappa Gamma because two of my rush-mates made fun of KKG and I wanted them to like me;

4) Staying at the University of Wisconsin for my sophomore year instead of transferring to UCLA (where I had been accepted) so that I could live in the Theta house before transferring; (It was an honor to live in the House when you were a sophomore.  I was eligible because I had high grades. Most were juniors and seniors);

5) Getting “pinned” to Darrell MacIntyre because he was good-looking and a lot of girls wanted him. Plus, the “Pinning Ceremony” was a big deal in the House. 

And, on it goes for years.  Still is.  “Roads not Taken” or “Crossroads” or “Serendipity” or “flukes” or … something like that.  I have had unexpected benefits, unexpected drawbacks, and perverse results.  Duh.  And, now I am observing unintended consequences in the world as well in my life in overlapping succession.  Just some food for thought in these first few day of 2019. …..

Best, Jay



Company Memo

FROM:   Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:        All Employees

DATE:    November 1, 2018

RE:           Christmas Party

I am happy to inform you that the company Christmas Party will take place on 23 December starting at noon in the private function room at the Grill House.

There will be a cash deposit for the bar and plenty of drinks!  We will have a small band playing traditional Christmas Carols, feel free to sing along.  And do not be surprised if our CEO shows up dressed as Santa Claus.

A Christmas tree will be lit at 1:00 p.m..  Exchanges of gifts among employees can be done at that time; however, no gift should be over £10.00 to make the giving of gifts easy for everyone’s pockets.

This gathering is only for employees!

Our CEO will make a special announcement at that time!

Merry Christmas to you and your family.


Company Memo

FROM:   Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:        All Employees

DATE:    November 2, 2018

RE:       Holiday Party

In no way was yesterday’s memo intended to exclude our Jewish employees.  We recognize that Hanukkah is an important holiday, which often coincides with Christmas, although unfortunately not this year.

However, from now on, we are calling it our ‘Holiday Party’.  The same policy applies to any other employees who are not Christians and to those still celebrating Reconciliation Day.

There will be no Christmas tree and no Christmas carols will be sung.

We will have other types of music for your enjoyment.

Are you happy now?

Happy Holidays to you and your family.


Company Memo

FROM:   Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:        All Employees

DATE:   November 3, 2018

RE:       Holiday Party

Regarding the note I received from a member of Alcoholics Anonymous requesting a non-drinking table, you did not sign your name.

I am happy to accommodate you for this request, but if I put a sign on a table that reads ‘AA Only’ you would not be anonymous anymore.  So how am I supposed to handle this?


And sorry, but forget about the gift exchange.
Gifts will no longer be allowed because the union members feel that £10.00 is too much money and the executives believe £10.00 is a little stingy.




Company Memo

FROM:  Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

To:        All Employees

DATE:   November 4, 2018

RE:        Generic Holiday Party

What a diverse group we are!  I had no idea that the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which forbids eating and drinking during daylight hours, begins on 20 December.

There goes the party!  Seriously, we can appreciate how a luncheon at this time of year does not accommodate our ‘Muslim employees’ beliefs.

Perhaps the Grill House can hold off on serving your meal until the end of the party or else package everything for you to take it home in little aluminum foil doggy bag.

Will that work?

Meanwhile, I have arranged for members of Weight Watchers to sit farthest from the dessert buffet, and pregnant women will get the table closest to the restrooms.

Gays are allowed to sit with each other.

Lesbians do not have to sit with Gay men, and each group will have their own table.

Yes, there will be flower arrangement for the Gay men’s table.

To the person asking permission to cross dress, the Grill House asks that no cross-dressing to be allowed, apparently because of concerns about confusion in the restrooms. Sorry.

We will have booster seats for short people.

Low-fat food will be available for those on a diet.

I am sorry to report that we cannot control the amount of salt used in the food.

The Grill House suggests that people with high blood pressure taste a bite first.

There will be fresh ‘low sugar’ fruits as dessert for diabetics, but the restaurant cannot supply ‘no sugar’ desserts.  Sorry!

Did I miss anything???


Company Memo

FROM:   Patty Lewis, Human Resources Director

TO:         All Employees

DATE:    November 5, 2018

RE:        The Holiday Party

I have had it with you vegetarian pricks!  We are going to keep this party at the Grill House whether you a**holes like it or not, so you can sit quietly at the table furthest from the ‘grill of death’, as you so quaintly put it, and you will get your f***ing salad bar, including organic tomatoes.

But do you know that tomatoes have feelings too.  They scream when you slice them.  I have heard them scream.  I am hearing them scream RIGHT NOW!

The rest of you perishing weirdos can kiss my a**.

I hope you all have a rotten holiday!

Drive drunk and die.


Company Memo

FROM:  Joan Bishop, A CTING   Human Resources Director

DATE:   November 6, 2018

RE:       Patty Lewis and Holiday Party

I am sure I speak for all of us in wishing Patty Lewis a speedy recovery from her recent nervous breakdown and I will continue to forward your cards to her at the Hospital.

In the meantime, management has decided to cancel our Holiday Party and give everyone the afternoon of the 23 rd   off with full pay.

So ‘F*** the lot of You and Happy Whatever’!

Best, Jay


Remember the “funnies”.  At least, that is what we called them.  I don’t think newspapers have a “funnies” page anymore, do they?  That is what I would tell Daddy to pass to me when he was reading The Atlanta Journal on Sunday mornings at the breakfast table.  It was the ONLY thing I would read in the Sunday edition.  It was a whole section I could pull out and read my favorites.  Doonesbury, Kathy, Little Lulu, Brenda Starr, Mary Worth.  Remember?  When I moved to L.A., it became the Calendar section in the Los Angeles times on Sundays.  These days, we are lucky we still have good newspapers.  Anyway, in honor of the “FUNNIES” from Sundays past, ENJOY.  





















Best, Jay (in my Christmas outfit!!)



This is my Christmas gift to you.  It is a piece written by a woman I don’t know – By Maria Popov. I have friends who find these gems and then post them on social media.  My friend Karen Kondazian found this one. My thanks to her.  This one puts into words important “considerations” for ALL of us, especially now, as we fit what’s happening into each of our worlds.   So, sit down, get a cup of coffee or a sandwich, and get ready to spend some time, thinking about time, love, life, and all the things that matter to you in your life. Just know that if I could spend a few minutes with you and tell you about me and my lifelong pursuit of things that have mattered to me, this is what I would want to say to you (not quite so elegantly).  If it is not your cup of tea, enjoy a moment by the fire.  Sending love to all…..


By Maria Popov.

“Solitude, the kind we elect ourselves, is met with judgement and enslaved by stigma. It is also a capacity absolutely essential for a full life.”

“If the odds of finding one’s soul mate are so dreadfully dismal and the secret of lasting love is largely a matter of concession, is it any wonder that a growing number of people choose to go solo? The choice of solitude, of active aloneness, has relevance not only to romance but to all human bonds — even Emerson, perhaps the most eloquent champion of friendship in the English language, lived a significant portion of his life in active solitude, the very state that enabled him to produce his enduring essays and journals. And yet that choice is one our culture treats with equal parts apprehension and contempt, particularly in our age of fetishistic connectivity. Hemingway’s famous assertion that solitude is essential for creative work is perhaps so oft-cited precisely because it is so radical and unnerving in its proposition.

A friend recently relayed an illustrative anecdote: One evening during a short retreat in Mexico by herself, she entered the local restaurant and asked to be seated. Upon realizing she was to dine alone, the waitstaff escorted her to the back with a blend of puzzlement and pity, so as not to dilute the resort’s carefully engineered illusory landscape of coupled bliss. (It’s worth noting that this unsettling incident, which is as much about the stigma of being single as about the profound failure to honor the art of being alone, is one women are still far more likely to confront than men; some live to tell about it.)

Solitude, the kind we elect ourselves, is met with judgement and enslaved by stigma. It is also a capacity absolutely essential for a full life.

That paradox is what British author Sara Maitland explores in How to Be Alone (public library) — the latest installment in The School of Life’s thoughtful crusade to reclaim the traditional self-help genre in a series of intelligent, non-self-helpy yet immeasurably helpful guides to such aspects of modern living as finding fulfilling work, cultivating a healthier relationship with sex, worrying less about money, and staying sane.

While Maitland lives in a region of Scotland with one of the lowest population densities in Europe, where the nearest supermarket is more than twenty miles away and there is no cell service (pause on that for a moment), she wasn’t always a loner — she grew up in a big, close-knit family as one of six children. It was only when she became transfixed by the notion of silence, the subject of her previous book, that she arrived, obliquely, at solitude.

She writes: “I got fascinated by silence; by what happens to the human spirit, to identity and personality when the talking stops, when you press the off button, when you venture out into that enormous emptiness. I was interested in silence as a lost cultural phenomenon, as a thing of beauty and as a space that had been explored and used over and over again by different individuals, for different reasons and with wildly differing results. I began to use my own life as a sort of laboratory to test some ideas and to find out what it felt like. Almost to my surprise, I found I loved silence. It suited me. I got greedy for more. In my hunt for more silence, I found this valley and built a house here, on the ruins of an old shepherd’s cottage.”

Maitland’s interest in solitude, however, is somewhat different from that in silence — while private in its origin, it springs from a public-facing concern about the need to address “a serious social and psychological problem around solitude,” a desire to “allay people’s fears and then help them actively enjoy time spent in solitude.” And so she does, posing the central, “slippery” question of this predicament: “Being alone in our present society raises an important question about identity and well-being.”

How have we arrived, in the relatively prosperous developed world, at least, at a cultural moment which values autonomy, personal freedom, fulfillment and human rights, and above all individualism, more highly than they have ever been valued before in human history, but at the same time these autonomous, free, self-fulfilling individuals are terrified of being alone with themselves?

We live in a society which sees high self-esteem as a proof of well-being, but we do not want to be intimate with this admirable and desirable person.  We see moral and social conventions as inhibitions on our personal freedoms, and yet we are frightened of anyone who goes away from the crowd and develops “eccentric” habits.  We believe that everyone has a singular personal “voice” and is, moreover, unquestionably creative, but we treat with dark suspicion (at best) anyone who uses one of the most clearly established methods of developing that creativity — solitude. We think we are unique, special and deserving of happiness, but we are terrified of being alone. We are supposed now to seek our own fulfilment, to act on our feelings, to achieve authenticity and personal happiness — but mysteriously not do it on our own.

Today, more than ever, the charge carries both moral judgement and weak logic.

Curiously, and importantly, mastering the art of solitude doesn’t make us more antisocial but, to the contrary, better able to connect. By being intimate with our own inner life — that frightening and often foreign landscape that philosopher Martha Nussbaum so eloquently urged us to explore despite our fear — frees us to reach greater, more dimensional intimacy with others.

Maitland writes: “Nothing is more destructive of warm relations than the person who endlessly “doesn’t mind.” They do not seem to be a full individual if they have nothing of their own to “bring to the table,” so to speak. This suggests that even those who know that they are best and most fully themselves in relationships (of whatever kind) need a capacity to be alone, and probably at least some occasions to use that ability. If you know who you are and know that you are relating to others because you want to, rather than because you are trapped (unfree), in desperate need and greed, because you fear you will not exist without someone to affirm that fact, then you are free. Some solitude can in fact create better relationships, because they will be freer ones.”

And yet the value of aloneness has descended into a downward spiral of social judgment over the course of humanity. Citing the rise of “male spinsters” in the U.S. census — men over forty who never married, up from 6% in 1980 to 16% today — Maitland traces the odd cultural distortion of the concept itself: “In the Middle Ages the word “spinster” was a compliment. A spinster was someone, usually a woman, who could spin well: a woman who could spin well was financially self-sufficient — it was one of the very few ways that mediaeval women could achieve economic independence. The word was generously applied to all women at the point of marriage as a way of saying they came into the relationship freely, from personal choice, not financial desperation. Now it is an insult, because we fear “for” such women — and now men as well — who are probably ‘sociopaths.’”

This fairly modern attitude, which casts voluntary aloneness as a toxic trifecta of “sad, mad, and bad” — is reinforced via rather dogmatic circular logic that doesn’t afford those who choose solitude the basic dignity of their own choice. Reflecting on the prevalent response of pity — triggered by the “sad” portion of the dogma — Maitland plays out the exasperating impossibility of refuting such social assumptions: If you say, “Well, no actually; I am very happy,” the denial is held to prove the case. Recently someone trying to condole with me in my misery said, when I assured him I was in fact happy, “You may think you are.” But happiness is a feeling. I do not think it — I feel it. I may, of course, be living in a fool’s paradise and the whole edifice of joy and contentment is going to crash around my ears sometime soon, but at the moment I am either lying or reporting the truth. My happiness cannot, by the very nature of happiness, be something I think I feel but don’t really feel. There is no possible response that does not descend almost immediately to the school-playground level of “Did, didn’t; did, didn’t.”

Underlying these attitudes, Maitland argues, is the central driver of fear — fear of those radically different from us, who make choices we don’t necessarily understand. This drives us, in turn, to project our fright onto others, often in the form of anger — a manifestation, at once sad, mad, and bad, of Anaïs Nin’s memorable observation that “it is a sign of great inner insecurity to be hostile to the unfamiliar.” 

These persistently reinforced social fears, she notes, have chilling consequences: “If you tell people enough times that they are unhappy, incomplete, possibly insane and definitely selfish there is bound to come a grey morning when they wake up with the beginning of a nasty cold and wonder if they are lonely rather than simply “alone.” (This crucial difference between aloneness and loneliness, in fact, is not only central to our psychological unease but also enacted even in our bodies — while solitude may be essential for creativity and key to the mythology of genius, loneliness, scientists have found, has deadly physical consequences on our risk for everything from heart disease to dementia.)

Paradoxically, Maitland points out, many of our most celebrated cultural icons had solitude embedded in their lifestyle and spirit, from great explorers and adventurers to famous “geniuses.” She cites the great silent film actor Greta Garbo, a famous loner, as a particularly poignant example:  “Garbo introduced a subtlety of expression to the art of silent acting and that its effect on audiences cannot be exaggerated… In retirement she adopted a lifestyle of both simplicity and leisure, sometimes just ‘drifting’. But she always had close friends with whom she socialized and travelled. She did not marry but did have serious love affairs with both men and women. She collected art. She walked, alone and with companions, especially in New York. She was a skillful paparazzi-avoider. Since she chose to retire, and for the rest of her life consistently declined opportunities to make further films, it is reasonable to suppose that she was content with that choice.”

It is in fact evident that a great many people, for many different reasons, throughout history and across cultures, have sought out solitude to the extent that Garbo did, and after experiencing that lifestyle for a while continue to uphold their choices, even when they have perfectly good opportunities to live more social lives.

So how did our present attitudes toward solitude emerge?

Maitland argues that our lamentable refusal to afford those who choose aloneness “the normal tolerance of difference on which we pride ourselves elsewhere” is the result of a “very deep cultural confusion”.  

For two millennia, at least, we have been trying to live with two radically contrasting and opposed models of what the good life would or should be. Culturally, there is a slightly slick tendency to blame all our woes, and especially our social difficulties, either on a crude social Darwinism or on an ill-defined package called the “Judeo-Christian paradigm” or “tradition.” Apparently, this is why, among other things, we have so much difficulty with sex (both other people’s and our own); why women remain unequal; why we are committed to world domination and ecological destruction; and why we are not as perfectly happy as we deserve.  I, for one, do not believe this — but I do believe that we suffer from trying to hold together the values of Judeo-Christianity (inasmuch as we understand them) and the values of classical civilization, and they really do not fit.

Maitland traces the evolution of that confusion all the way back to the Roman Empire, with its ideals of public and social life. Even the word “civilization” bespeaks these values — it comes from civis, Latin for “citizen.” (Though it warrants noting that one of the greatest and most enduring Roman exports issued the memorable admonition that “all those who call you to themselves draw you away from yourself.”) Still, the Romans were notorious for their lust for power, honor, and glory — ideals invariably social in nature and crucial to the political cohesion of society when confronted with the barbarians at the gate.

Maitland writes: “In these circumstances solitude is threatening — without a common and embedded religious faith to give shared meaning to the choice, being alone is a challenge to the security of those clinging desperately to a sinking raft. People who pull out and “go solo” are exposing the danger while apparently escaping the engagement.”

Maitland fast-forwards to our present predicament, the product of millennia of cultural baggage: “No wonder we are frightened of those who desire and aspire to be alone, if only a little more than has been acceptable in recent social forms. No wonder we want to establish solitude as “sad, mad and bad” — consciously or unconsciously, those of us who want to do something so markedly countercultural are exposing, and even widening, the rift lines.

But the truth is, the present paradigm is not really working. Despite the intense care and attention lavished on the individual ego; despite over a century of trying to “raise self-esteem” in the peculiar belief that it will simultaneously enhance individuality and create good citizens; despite valiant attempts to consolidate relationships and lower inhibitions; despite intimidating efforts to dragoon the more independent-minded and creative to become “team players”; despite the promises of personal freedom made to us by neoliberalism and the cult of individualism and rights — despite all this, the well seems to be running dry. We are living in a society marked by unhappy children, alienated youth, politically disengaged adults, stultifying consumerism, escalating inequality, deeply scary wobbles in the whole economic system, soaring rates of mental ill-health and a planet so damaged that we may well end up destroying the whole enterprise.  Of course, we also live in a world of great beauty, sacrificial and passionate love, tenderness, prosperity, courage and joy. But quite a lot of all that seems to happen regardless of the paradigm and the high thoughts of philosophy. It has always happened. It is precisely because it has always happened that we go on wrestling with these issues in the hope that it can happen more often and for more people.”

And wrestle we do, often trying to grasp and cling our way out of solitude — a state we don’t fully understand and can’t fully inhabit to reap its rewards. Our two most common tactics for shielding against solitude, Maitland notes, are the offensive fear-and-projection strategy, where we criticize those capable of finding joy in solitude and condemn them to the sad-mad-bad paradigm, and the defensive approach, where we attempt to insulate ourselves from the risk of aloneness by obsessively accumulating a vast network of social ties as a kind of “insurance policy.”

In one of her most quietly poignant asides, Maitland whispers: “There is no number of friends on Facebook, contacts, connections or financial provision that can guarantee to protect us.”

Our cultural ambivalence is also manifested in our chronic bias for extraversion despite growing evidence for the power of introverts.

Maitland writes: “At the same time as pursuing this “extrovert ideal,” society gives out an opposite — though more subterranean — message. Most people would still rather be described as sensitive, spiritual, reflective, having rich inner lives and being good listeners than the more extroverted opposites. I think we still admire the life of the intellectual over that of the salesman; of the composer over the performer (which is why pop stars constantly stress that they write their own songs); of the craftsman over the politician; of the solo adventurer over the package tourist… But the kind of unexamined but mixed messages that society offers us in relation to being alone add to the confusion; and confusion strengthens fear.”

Among Maitland’s toolkit of “ideas for overturning negative views of solitude and developing a positive sense of aloneness and a true capacity to enjoy it” are the exploration of reverie and the practice of facing the fear. She enumerates the five basic categories of rewards to be reaped from unlearning our culturally conditioned fear of aloneness and learning how to “do” solitude well:

A deeper consciousness of oneself
A deeper attunement to nature
A deeper relationship with the transcendent (the numinous, the divine, the spiritual)
Increased creativity
An increased sense of freedom


OK, here is how the process has gone….   I made a commitment to myself to post blogs every weekend.  Even though I have not always kept that commitment, I have tried to and I always think about possible topics during each week, making notes.  This week, I thought about discussing “Fair Weather Friends” or “How Broad is My Horizon?”  Another one that struck my fancy was “Sharing Opportunity“. Or “We Must Learn to be Comfortable when We Are in an Uncomfortable Situation“. 

The One that I have selected for this week is “Humor is the Great Solvent Against the Universal Abrasions of Life.”  But, I don’t consider myself a “humorous” person; I must resort to other people’s humor. Thus, I collect cartoons that I like.  After a cartoon has been selected, not all of them make the cut. For instance, these two did not make the cut for one reason or another.


BUT, I liked them enough to save and to post in my “not chosen” column.  Haha.  But, below are several of the ones that made it into my “chosen” column.  Just so you know……..



And, now for the CLOSER!


Best, Jay




Jay W. MacIntosh Presented with the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award by Marquis Who’s Who

ENCINO, CA, November 30, 2018 /24-7PressRelease/ — Marquis Who’s Who, the world’s premier publisher of biographical profiles, is proud to present Jay W. MacIntosh with the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. An accomplished listee, Ms. MacIntosh celebrates many years of experience in her professional network, and has been noted for achievements, leadership qualities, and the credentials and successes She has accrued in her field. As in all Marquis Who’s Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.

With more than 40 years of professional experience, Ms. MacIntosh worked as an entertainment and employment lawyer out of her private practice since 2000, as well as a real estate broker with MacIntosh Realtors since 1985. In addition to her primary roles, she served as a judicial extern with the United States Bankruptcy Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 1998. Earlier in her career, Ms. MacIntosh excelled as a real estate broker with Merrill Lynch Realty from 1976 to 1985.

Ms. MacIntosh began her career with the University of Wisconsin, completing coursework from 1955 to 1957. She then enrolled at the University of Georgia, where she received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in speech and drama in 1961 and a Master of Arts in drama in 1962. After obtaining experience in the field, she returned to her studies with Whittier Law School, earning a Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1999. Ms. MacIntosh has been admitted to practice in the state of California, as well as before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

A respected voice in her areas of interest, Ms. MacIntosh has been an active leader in her community. A member of the California Bar Association, she is also affiliated with the Actors Studio, the Screen Actors Guild, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, the Academy of TV Arts and Sciences, and Women in Film. In addition to her primary responsibilities, Ms. MacIntosh has found success in the performing arts as well, appearing as an actor in such productions as “Lassie,” “Gunsmoke,” “Sons and Daughters,” and “Joni,” among many others.

Throughout her career, Ms. MacIntosh has been recognized for her contributions in the field. A prolific author with a diverse range of expertise, she has been a member of Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, and Zodiac Scholastic Society. Ms. MacIntosh had been featured in numerous publications, including multiple editions of Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in American Law, and Who’s Who of American Women.

In recognition of outstanding contributions to her profession and the Marquis Who’s Who community, Jay W. MacIntosh has been featured on the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement website. Please visit www.ltachievers.com for more information about this honor.

Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who’s Who in America®, Marquis Who’s Who® has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Today, Who’s Who in America® remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis® now publishes many Who’s Who titles, including Who’s Who in America®, Who’s Who in the World®, Who’s Who in American Law®, Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare®, Who’s Who in Science and Engineering®, and Who’s Who in Asia®. Marquis® publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who’s Who® website at www.marquiswhoswho.com.011


“In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.

A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24.

The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9.

The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death.

Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian)”