Entries from December 2003 ↓

From Snopes.com:
Few Americans have any inkling that there even is such a thing as Boxing Day, let alone what the reason might be for a holiday so named. However, before one concludes we’re about to rag on Americentric attitudes towards other cultures, we should quickly point out that even though Boxing Day is celebrated in Australia, Britain, New Zealand, and Canada, not all that many in those countries have much of a notion as to why they get the 26th of December off. Boxing Day might well be a statutory holiday in some of those lands, but it’s not a well understood one.

.Despite the lively images suggested by the name, it has nothing to do with pugilistic expositions between tanked-up family members who have dearly been looking forward to taking a round out of each other for the past year. Likewise, it does not gain its name from the overpowering need to rid the house of an excess of wrappings and mountains of now useless cardboard boxes the day after St. Nick arrived to turn a perfectly charming and orderly home into a maelstrom of discarded tissue paper.

The name also has nothing to do with returning unwanted gifts to the stores they came from, hence its common association with hauling about boxes on the day after Christmas.

The holiday’s roots can be traced to Britain, where Boxing Day is also known as St. Stephen’s Day. Reduced to the simplest essence, its origins are found in a long-ago practice of giving cash or durable goods to those of the lower classes. Gifts among equals were exchanged on or before Christmas Day, but beneficences to those less fortunate were bestowed the day after.

And that’s about as much as anyone can definitively say about its origin because once you step beyond that point, it’s straight into the quagmire of debated claims and dueling folklorists. Which, by the way, is what we’re about to muddy our boots with.

Although there is general agreement that the holiday is of British origin and it has to do with giving presents to the less fortunate, there is still dispute as to how the name came about or precisely what unequal relationship is being recognized.

At various times, the following “origins” have been loudly asserted as the correct one:
Centuries ago, ordinary members of the merchant class gave boxes of food and fruit to tradespeople and servants the day after Christmas in an ancient form of Yuletide tip. These gifts were an expression of gratitude to those who worked for them, in much the same way that one now tips the paperboy an extra $20 at Christmastime or slips the building’s superintendent a bottle of fine whisky. Those long-ago gifts were done up in boxes, hence the day coming to be known as “Boxing Day.”

Christmas celebrations in the old days entailed bringing everyone together from all over a large estate, thus creating one of the rare instances when everyone could be found in one place at one time. This gathering of his extended family, so to speak, presented the lord of the manor with a ready-made opportunity to easily hand out that year’s stipend of necessities. Thus, the day after Christmas, after all the partying was over and it was almost time to go back to far-flung homesteads, serfs were presented with their annual allotment of practical goods. Who got what was determined by the status of the worker and his relative family size, with spun cloth, leather goods, durable food supplies, tools, and whatnot being handed out. Under this explanation, there was nothing voluntary about this transaction; the lord of the manor was obligated to supply these goods. The items were chucked into boxes, one box for each family, to make carrying away the results of this annual restocking easier; thus, the day came to be known as “Boxing Day.”

Many years ago, on the day after Christmas, servants in Britain carried boxes to their masters when they arrived for the day’s work. It was a tradition that on this day all employers would put coins in the boxes as a special end-of-the-year gift. In a closely-related version of this explanation, apprentices and servants would on that day get to smash open small earthenware boxes left for them by their masters. These boxes would house small sums of money specifically left for them.

This dual-versioned theory melds the two previous ones together into a new form � namely, the employer who was obligated to hand out something on Boxing Day, but this time to recipients who were not working the land for him and thus were not dependent on him for all they wore and ate. The “box” thus becomes something beyond ordinary compensation (in a way goods to landed serfs was not), yet it’s also not a gift in that there’s nothing voluntary about it. Under this theory, the boxes are an early form of Christmas bonus, something employees see as their entitlement.

Boxes in churches for seasonal donations to the needy were opened on Christmas Day, and the contents distributed by the clergy the following day. The contents of this alms box originated with the ordinary folks in the parish who were under no direct obligation to provide anything at all and were certainly not tied to the recipients by a employer/employee relationship. In this case, the “box” in “Boxing Day” comes from that one gigantic lockbox the donations were left in.

More elaborate versions of this origin involve boxes kept on sailing ships:

The title has been derived by some, from the box which was kept on board of every vessel that sailed upon a distant voyage, for the reception of donations to the priest � who, in return, was expected to offer masses for the safety of the expedition, to the particular saint having charge of the ship � and above all, of the box. The box was not to be opened until the return of the vessel; and we can conceive that, in cases where the mariners had had a perilous time of it, this casket would be found to enclose a tolerable offering. The mass was at that time called Christmass, and the boxes kept to pay for it were, of course, called Christmass-boxes. The poor, amongst those who had an interest in the fate of these ships, or of those who sailed in them, were in the habit of begging money from the rich, that they might contribute to the mass boxes; and hence the title which has descended to our day, giving to the anniversary of St Stephen’s martyrdom the title of Christmas-boxing day, and, by corruption, its present popular one of Boxing Day.

Whichever theory one chooses to back, the one thread common to all is the theme of one-way provision to those not inhabiting the same social level. As mentioned previously, equals exchanged gifts on Christmas Day or before, but lessers (be they tradespeople, employees, servants, serfs, or the generic “poor”) received their “boxes” on the day after. It is to be noted that the social superiors did not receive anything back from those they played Lord Bountiful to: a gift in return would have been seen as a presumptuous act of laying claim to equality, the very thing Boxing Day was an entrenched bastion against. Boxing Day was, after all, about preserving class lines.

Merry Christmas everyone, from all of us at Adventures of Mike..

From the Yankee press release:

NEW YORK YANKEES - BREAKING NEWS
December 23, 2003
============================================================

-> Yankees sign OF Lofton and RHP Gordon <-

The Yankees announced Tuesday that they have signed free-agent outfielder Kenny Lofton and free-agent relief pitcher Tom Gordon to two-year contracts.

Lofton has a .298 batting average in his 13-year Major-League career and has 538 stolen bases, the second-highest total among active players in 2003. He has played for seven different teams (Houston Astros, 1991; Cleveland Indians, 1992-’96, 1998-2001; Chicago White Sox, 2002; San Francisco Giants, 2002; Chicago Cubs, 2003 and the Pittsburgh Pirates, 2003).

Gordon posted a 7-6 record with a 3.16 ERA in 66 relief appearances with the Chicago White Sox last season. Gordon is a 16-year veteran (Kansas City Royals, 1988-95; Boston Red Sox, 1996-2000; Chicago Cubs, 2001-02; Houston Astros, 2002; and the White Sox, 2003).

Get the complete story at Yankees.com

Adventures of Mike is proud to bring you our picks for the best rock albums of 2003:

.1.) Hail To The Thief - Radiohead

2.) Pig Lib - Stephen Malkmus & The Jicks

3.) Chutes Too Narrow - The Shins

4.) Streetcore - Joe Strummer & The Mescaleros

5.) Yoko - Beulah

6.) Elephant - The White Stripes

7.) It Still Moves - My Morning Jacket

8.) Thickfreakness - The Black Keys

9.) Electric Version - The New Pornographers

10.) Quebec - Ween

Others receiving votes: Think Tank - Blur, Reality - David Bowie, You Are Free - Cat Power, Hate - The Delgados, Diamonds On The Inside - Ben Harper, Youth and Young Manhood - Kings Of Leon, Up The Bracket - The Libertines, When I Pretend To Fall - The Long Winters, Wormwood - moe., Phantom Power - Super Furry Animals, So Much For The City - The Thrills, Fever To Tell - Yeah Yeah Yeahs

I’m too disgusted to write this review, so here’s the BBC’s take:

1 - 1

Substitute Henrik Pedersen came off the bench to earn Bolton a deserved point and frustrate the Premiership leaders.

Robert Pires did put Arsenal ahead in the second half after Freddie Ljungberg’s shot was saved following a Thierry Henry break.

But Gunners keeper Jens Lehmann was forced into several fine stops before Pedersen equalised with an unstoppable shot close to the final whistle.

A draw was no less than Bolton deserved after another gritty, hard-working performance.

Arsenal remain unbeaten in the Premiership this season, and stay top but will be disappointed to have conceded their first goal since Craig Hignett scored for Leicester on 6 December.

Bolton’s confident performance reflected their recent fine form, and they started well again.

Okocha won an early corner for the home team and Kevin Davies forced an early save from Lehmann with a well drilled shot from 15 yards.

Youri Djorkaeff shot over the Gunners crossbar from 12 yards after Okocha and Per Frandsen combined to create space for the French striker.

KEY MOMENTS
32 mins: Lehmann saves from Davies
57 mins: Pires scores for Arsenal
59 mins: Okocha hits the woodwork
83 mins: Pedersen brilliantly equalises

Shortly afterwards Kevin Nolan opened up the Arsenal defence with a neat turn and his superb shot was brilliantly saved by Lehmann.

Ivan Campo then rounded young Arsenal left-back Gael Clinchy with an exquisite piece of skill but Davies could not quite reach the Spaniard’s subsequent driven ball across the six yard box.

All Arsenal could muster in the opening half was two half chances by Thierry Henry, both of which missed the target - and a devastating counter attack on the stroke of half-time that almost resulted in a goal.

Patrick Vieira glided past Campo in midfield and slipped the ball to Henry, whose cross from the right was headed narrowly wide by Freddie Ljungberg.

Arsenal stepped up the tempo after the break, with the Gunners’ midfield finally seeing some of the ball.

Simon Charlton did superbly to thwart Henry, who was bearing down on goal at full pace with the Bolton defender as the last man.

But Arsenal’s improved second-half performance eventually resulted in the opening goal.

Ljungberg’s shot was parried by Jussi Jaaskelainen into the path of Pires, who made no mistake from eight yards.

The move had started with Dennis Bergkamp dispossessing Ricardo Gardner - angering the home supporters who felt their player had been fouled.

Okocha almost restored parity with a superb free-kick that shaved the edge of the Arsenal post on its way out of play.

Frandsen’s lob after a poor punch by Lehmann appeared goalbound, but Pires made a crucial defensive header as Bolton pushed for an equaliser.

And their pressure throughout the match was ultimately rewarded when Pedersen deservedly equalised.

Pascal Cygan’s defensive header fell to the Danish substitute, who smashed the ball past Lehmann with an unstoppable left-footed drive from 20 yards.

(out of five)

Last night I was witness to one of the greatest feats in motion picture history. The Lord Of The Rings:The Return of The King is perhaps one of the greatest films ever made, and is in fact the best film of the last fifteen to twenty years.

Peter Jackson and crew deserve every accolade that is being thrown upon them. If he does not win best director at this year’s Oscars, the Academy should be disbanded.

The final chapter of the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, “Return Of The King” follows our heroes as they continue on their separate journeys in the quest to save Middle Earth. Frodo and Sam continue to press on into Mordor in an effort to destroy the “One Ring.” Gandalf heads to the white city of Minas Tirith, with Pippen in tow, to warn the steward of Gondor of an impending orc attack on the city. Meanwhile, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, and Merry, join the forces of King Theoden of Rohan in preparations for the coming war to save Gondor.

The genius of the film is not only apparent in the special effects and amazing battle sequences, but - in an even more profound manner - in the ever present themes of human existance that are woven into the film. Courage, despair, ever-lasting love, unrequited love, joy, honor, duty, reponsibility, determination, hope, sorrow, fear, pain, rejection, deception, greed, friendship; little moments featuring quiet exchanges between characters coupled with triumphant overcoming of incredible odds.

All of these are on display, and more often than not, I felt the emotions right along with the characters. It’s one thing for my girlfriend to become uncomfortable while watching a sitcom character go through a sticky situation, it’s quite another for me to be brought to tears while watching what is ostensibly an fantasy-action film.

But, then, that’s just it; “Return Of The King” is more than just another fantasy film, it is the ultimate allegory for life itself. To do the best with the time we’re given, however trying they might be. To accept our responsibilites, however daunting or scary they might be. To fight oppression in whichever form it takes. To celebrate the things that matter most in this life. And having the wisdom to figure out exactly what those things are.

If you haven’t yet seen this film, then stop reading, and head to the theater immediately. We’ve been quite fortunate these past several Christmases, enjoying an annual gift from our friends in New Zealand. I for one will miss the family tradition that has sprung up over the last three years. It will most likely be some time before another film requires the amount of pre-planning among my family members that “Return Of The King,” and it’s predecessors, “The Fellowship Of The Ring,” and “The Two Towers” had made necessary.

All hail “The Return Of The King,” a reminder (as well as the justification) of why we all go to the movies in the first place.