On many a Saturday morning I like to lolligag until 8:00 and then catch TCM's Darkness After Dawn movie. Of late, however, they've been showing the same movies over and over again and much as I like most of them, very few can be rewatched within only a few weeks. Anyway, all that is in aid of saying that this morning I watched Angel Eyes, a 2001 film written by Luis Mandoki, a Mexican screenwriter with a few light movies to his credit (Gaby: A True Story, White Palace (Sarandon and Spader), Born Yesterday (the '93 remake)). Angel Eyes stars Jennifer Lopez and James Caviezel; since I've never watched either of them in an entire movie before that got my attention. The movie isn't great art but it's a mildly good story and the characters are fairly interesting. I kept thinking I recognized Caviezel's name but only when I looked him up did I realize he is the "it" man who played J.C. in The Passion of the Christ and was named People's sexiest man in the world later that year (quite the juxtaposition, come to think of it).

Labels: movies

As I've read various people's snarling remarks about how (or how not) to fight terrorism, I've been reminded of those immortal words that people say to women who are being emotionally or physically bullied. (I have no familiarity with men who are bullied but the same may well be true for them.) "What did you do?" they ask. And, indeed, one's first impulse when attacked is logically to try and apply sense to the situation. How can you lessen or remove the person's annoyance? Can you stop doing whatever you were doing that (seems to have) caused the outburst? This is a huge fallacy, however, because the real cause of bullying has nothing whatsoever to do with what factually happened except in a proximate way. The real cause of bullying behavior is a desire to exert domineering power in the only way they know how which is to cause fear. Sure there are psychological factors like the abuse suffered by the abuser and how to get under the resulting anger so as to change things, but that's not the responsibility of the recipient of bullying. In fact, rational discourse never softens bullying behavior and even may exacerbate further and greater rancor. Tony Blair recently pointed to the idea that fighting terrorists provokes terrorists, and said that fighting bullying is actually the only way to reject, deflect and get rid of it because otherwise you just sit and wait to be attacked again, to be yelled at, slapped, punched, terrified. Again and again. It won't end by itself and it won't stop because the bully suddenly feels bad. Cajoling and trying to convince amount to sitting around and waiting to be attacked again, at which point one will simply have to bandage one's physical or emotional wounds (or those of one's citizens). It is as false on a global stage as it is on a personal one to think that rejecting bullying actually provokes it. Bullies don't want to work with anyone or change anything. They just want to frighten people and rule however many people they can get their hands on. If it's a wife, great. If it's also a child, great. If it's political cronies, all the better. If it's a whole country, even better. If it's a culture, better yet. And if people try to work with them (wives, countries, whatever), best of all, because then the bullied people will be sitting there all unsuspecting and be even more astonished and miserable when the bully returns with renewed vigor.

Labels: reflections

An interesting debate is getting going about banning trans fats. Mayor "Stop smoking now!" Bloomberg is urging the NYC health department to prohibit the use of trans fats. I'm a big fan of the whole/real food dictum that says you should eat only what you can identify as edible, thus you should avoide margarine which is basically coagulated fat, lower in fat than butter though it may be. This doesn't recommend butter, of course, but if you have to eat something butter-like, you should eat butter itself which is at least what it is. (Or try the delicious and zero-trans-fat Brummel & Brown yogurt-butter - which I've just discovered thanks to you-know-who-you-are!) Anyway, the most interesting part of the debate to me is whether the government should edict our good health or good behavior. Should they ban smoking or trans fats or anything else for that matter, or should we be responsible for making ourselves sick or unhealthy? I'm awfully uncomfortable with governmental edicts, I have to say. At least one large underlying issue is that we rarely have enough information to make choices (good or bad), so if I got to influence this debate and decision, I'd spend time, effort and energy on making sure the facts were accurate and visibly available.

Labels: food

I realized today that I haven't knit in several weeks. At night I've gotten sidetracked by reading or plain relaxing (you know, where you flop on the fabulously comfy sofa and don't move?) or fussing over the blog or with something else on the computer. Since holidays and fall birthdays are steadily approaching every nearer, this is not a good thing. Other than the sheer imposition of self-discipline, which will add a note of distinct non fun, I wonder what to do?

Labels: knitting, whining

Whenever a new tv season starts, I enjoy just enough of the new shows to convince myself that I'm less intelligent and more shallow than I would like to believe. All based on the possibly (hopefully) erroneous assumption that tv shows aren't well written or structured. So far, I've been enjoying Studio 60 with its snappy tone, although I don't think I like any of the characters and that will make it wear thin pretty soon. As I said last week, I quite like Shark and so am looking forward to Thursdays at 10. I can't work up any interest this year in Without a Trace for some reason, even though I loved it for a long time. And I feel a little the same about The Medium, also for no reason I can put my finger on. The two that really baffle me for liking them are Close to Home and Justice, but I excuse them because the acting is pretty good even if they are way too predictible, although Justice's gimmick is kind of cool. I want to like Numbers but find it too gory. And I enjoyed Men In Trees (the pilot, anyway) even though I knew it was pretty awful as I was watching it. My favorites of the week continue to be House (although it's too gory at least once each show) and, even more, Criminal Minds to which I am usually rivited even though it's scary and deeply sad sometimes; I think it may be the best written of all these, and I love Mandy Patinkin's character. How about you?

Labels: about me, tv

We're coming down to the wire with Project Runway tonight, two more shows to go. There are four in the running: Laura, Michael, Ule and Jeffrey. I am at a loss to know who will win the whole kit and kaboodle since it's hard to tell whether they want to toss it to a wearable designer or a fashionista. Jeffrey is the 'bad boy' of the bunch, complete with neck tatoos and atrocious playing-with-other skills. Some of his designs have been amusing but don't seem to me to be anywhere near as fabulous as he says they are or as know-it-all judge Nina Garcia (fashion editor of Elle) constantly remarks. If he wins, it will be a blow to civility and talent. Laura is the mother superior, which is an odd role in a fashion design show, but she's also way holier than thou or thee or me or anyone else, and her designs are 1950s Vassar, much too prim for 2006 taste, it seems to me. Her sewing and assembly skills are amazing but I'm not sure if putting-together should carry this particular day. Ule's clothes are always lovely flowy charming concoctions - and she has the most upbeat attitude in the world, but everything is almost always the same, varying only by color and neckline. With any breadth, she might be The One because I think people would buy her clothing in a heartbeat. I wish the judges could have seen beyond Kayne's backwoods twang and Allison's slight tentativeness; it would have made a much more interesting finale. Anyway, Michael has been the most inventive and creative thus far. Plus, he seems so interested and eager, which is very appealing. None of his designs has been the same as another and there's always a touch of something new and fresh in everything he does. It would be a real kick to see him win. Update: All four advanced to the 12-outfit finals. Next week: a wrap party.

Labels: modern culture, runway, tv

Lucky me, I got to spend the weekend on the far east coast, visiting friends and going to a beach and a seafood restaurant, among other things. The restaurant was one of those "in the rough" places where the quality of the food is the focus and I must say the food was indeed fantastic. I find myself dreaming about the clam chowder ever since...! The mostly sandy beach was shaped slightly like a crescent and seemed lower than the ocean on the horizon which may explain why the surf was especially robust. The children chased lapping waves, running from and then to them, giggling and falling right into the water from sheer delight. One of them got to add some shells and seaweed, a crab leg shell and a partial sand dollar, to her collection.

It occurred to me as I stood there soaking up the wonderful moment in time that the whole thing exemplified why we are hated by some. Just picture it. My eye scanned the scene: bocci players on one part of the beach, a couple dozen surfers catching waves, families with dogs jumping ecstatically in and out of the water, people gathering barnacles on the rocks, one guy stretched out with a book and sunning himself, and several of us strolling along the foamy surf breathing in the wonderful air and children having a thoroughly great time.

Labels: modern culture, politics, reflections

On the news they mentioned rather ominously that the combined death toll from Afghanistan and Iraq now just about equals the 9/11 death toll from the World Trade Center. Which means what, exactly? Any two or three numbers can be put beside each other but it proves nothing unless there is a real connection. For example:

The number of people killed in the WTC is about the same as two trainloads of commuters on Metro North during morning rush hour. Which means what?

The number of people killed in Aghanistan and Iraq is less than died on almost any one day of World War II. Which means what?

The number of people killed in several battles of the Civil War was many times that of the number killed in the WTC. Which means what?

The number of people who live on one square block of midtown Manhattan is about half the number of residents of most towns in upstate New York. Which means what?

Drawing connections is fun, perhaps, but pointless and meaningless unless carefully and logically made. Which you'd have thought any journalist knows. Unless, of course, he or she has an agenda....

Labels: politics, reflections

Here's what I don't get about anti-Americanism. To be honest, there's lots, like how come they want our blue jeans, our rock 'n' roll, our movies, our financial success, etc., etc., then go ahead and hate us anyway. But what I'm thinking about right now that I don't get is that so many people around the world are subjected to the same cr#* from terrorists and yet some of them get mad and yell and burn effigies about how awful we are and how dreadful the President is when he decries terrorism and says it needs to be rejected and stopped. Huh?

Labels: politics, reflections

I watched James Woods' show last night on CBS, Shark. I thought it was terrific. (Looking it up online, I see that Spike Lee directed the episode last night. Heavy stuff for a tv show, eh?) Fairly interesting courtroom stuff, not unexpectedly, but the really interesting part is Woods' character. He's a hard-edged, highly successful attorney (formerly for the defense, now a prosecutor) whose teenage daughter is far more emotionally evolved than he and very much wants to be part of his life. He wants to be part of hers, too, but it's a tad difficult for him. Except for the daughter (understatedly and strongly played by Danielle Panabaker), the supporting cast is so much less adept than Woods - and their parts are far more underwritten - that it's a shame. But the show is definitely a must-see.

Labels: tv, writing

Superb juxtaposition : Steven King and H.G. Wells share today as their birth day.

Labels: gk1, juxtapositions, s.p.e.e.d.ing

Obituaries are a terrific place to peak at history. You get to learn about the world in which we live, the important, the silly, the cultural and the mundane, one person at a time. For example, just this morning one learns about Ivan Luini and Sergio Savarese who designed furniture together, L.W. McNutt (honestly, that's his name) who turned making fruitcake into a mega mail order gift business, Fouad el-Mohandes who was an Egyptian comedian of great fame (truly), Burt Goldblatt who designed album covers for jazz artists, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV of Tonga who was killed with his wife and their longtime friend and driver near Menlo Park (Calif.), and Patricia Kennedy Lawford who was one of the lovely bevy of John F. Kennedy's sisters and mother of articulate and powerful memorist Christopher Lawford.

As for the title of this post, did you ever notice how risky the early 80's are - meaning that decade of one's life, not sixteen-to-twenty-six years ago? I wish there were some way to jump from 79 to 86.

Labels: farewells, juxtapositions, people, s.p.e.e.d.ing

Mills Mansion in Staatsburg, NY has an annual Celtic Fair which we went to today. It was sunny and hot (!!), a gorgeous day though I wish they had some tents to retreat under for occasional relief. The food was, as always, delicious (fish & chips tops the list), the bagpipe music rousing, the border collie herding demonstrations fabulous, the sheep shearing fascinating, the dancing performances terrific, the many wonderful dogs who come out every year charming and fun to see. New great t-shirt slogan is "Bagpipers put the fun in funerals" although "Real men wear kilts" is good, too. Seriously, hardly anything is lovely as bagpipes playing Amazing Grace or God Bless America. All four bagpipe bands played several numbers during the closing ceremony, ending with both of those. I sat on the grass with one of t2cgitw and she swayed and sang, smiling, through it all. As each band took its leave up the hill, she waved and said "bye bye band, see you next year". Indeed.

Labels: about me, family, fun, things to do

In offices, it's not ususual to make friends, given shared interests and so much time in each other's company. But on the train? I've been commuting to New York City for 12+ years and have met some terrific people. Just from a storytelling point of view, two of the best were the perfume salesman-conservationist-philantropist and the theologician-horseman-comptroller, but everyone has a story to tell and many are caring and kind with a wide variety of interests, not surprising since we all converge on superlative NYC. The long commute offers unavoidable concentrated personal time plus an opportunity to meet people. Definitely a perk of my job.

Labels: about me, friends, gk1, people, s.p.e.e.d.ing

I'm not sure why this thorough and forceful article was printed yesterday instead of sometime previous, but Victoria Toensing (flame-haired (heh) guest on many news shows because she's so articulate), chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general during the Reagan administration, has summarized all the points about the (non)outing of Mrs Wilson, complete with who knew what and when they knew it. She leaves off a detail that seems like a rather charming (read: not charming at all) postscript to the whole thing, which is that Colin Powell, he of the recently disapproving airs, was Armitage's superior and knew all about all of this too. In the end, there are three salient points: 1. like almost everyone in national politics, the Wilsons are publicity mongers, 2. most people in political life will lie or distort almost anything if it gets them publicity and attention and/or whatever it is they want, and 3. proving #2 and #1, it's clear now that FitzGerald deliberately arranged things so that the visible facts would tell a specific story, even though he knew there were underlying facts that told a larger and different story. I'm not sure if this is important enough to warrant action against FitzGerald and the plaming Wilsons but it sure would be tempting if I were Libby or Novak.

Labels: huh?, politics

The President held a press conference yesterday morning in the Rose Garden. (Is there any location quite as pretty for people to just stand around and talk? It must be extraordinary to conduct business there.) Tthis morning I read several reports on what GWB and the newspeople said. And I saw a replay on C-Span (thank heavens for C-Span) and read the transcript. It's hardly new news that stories about things are rarely totally accurate, but this was particularly egregious. Not only was there no rancor between Mr Bush and the press, but the mood was relaxed and there was even friendly teasing on both sides. A reporter from the NY Times stood and said "Hi, Mr President"; Mr Bush asked if she had actually said "Hi Mr President" and she answered "We're a friendly newspaper", earning laughter from everyone, including the President. I especially liked his comment toward the end about not being "a very good focus group.... I'm encapsulated here. But I'm able to see a lot of people..." My point is this: when you actually hear him speak, assuming you listen without filters, it's clear he's a serious person who's as aware and caring as many Americans have believed him to be. Anyway, the substance of the discussions was much more interesting and nuanced than what was reported - read it or watch it if you can.

Labels: gwb, reflections

One hears and reads much grousing about work and colleagues but, first of all, I quite like my job and my colleagues and my employers so I wouldn't say much negative anyway, but today I am hugely grateful and appreciative and just have to say something out loud. (Do you suppose two ptft's earn even better karma than one?) Anyway, I really needed help with something and was on the verge of panicking - which you could tell because my voice was getting higher (a really annoying affliction, I have to say) - until one of the supervisors offered to ask all her people for a volunteer . . . and four people appeared within seconds. Generosity, cooperation and assistance are wonderful things. Pass it on!

Labels: about me, friends, gk1, people, s.p.e.e.d.ing

I found three undeveloped one-time cameras in a drawer last weekend. (Does everyone have those drawers where you throw stuff? The trick is to remember to look in it now and then, right?) I got them developed and found some lovely pictures - some from my wonderful trip to San Francisco in September and October of 2004 (hard to believe it was so long ago) and from visits to t2cgitw at various times. I thought I had those pictures and (now) I do!

Labels: gk1, s.p.e.e.d.ing, things to do

Il y a un outil etonnant chez Google! C'est "Google Language Tools. Avec seule un clic, il traduit une Web-page entiere en une autre langue. Superbe! [Accents print in preview but not published (é) so I've removed them.]

Labels: fun, gk1, s.p.e.e.d.ing

While considering what to say for today's positive thing, I remembered the pleasure my mother always got from daisies. Which reminded me of the Dahlia flower stalls in Grand Central Terminal. The sales people are friendly and quick, and the flowers are gorgeous and colorful. Furthermore, because they're a direct importer, the flowers are extremely fresh and last a long time, as long as ten days or two weeks depending on the flowers. The flowers range from 'normal' (mums, gerber daisies, asters) to seasonal (heather, sunflowers) to commemorative (roses, lilies) to super (alstroemeria, freesia, sunflowers, tulips, orchids....) and fabulous (birds of paradise, lisianthus...). They have a master designer who can create bouquets and special orders - but best of all is that for less than the cost of a quick food lunch (honestly), those of us lucky enough to pass through GCT can have beautiful fresh flowers every week, all week long.

Labels: about me, family, fun, gk1, good ideas, s.p.e.e.d.ing

A few months ago I said I would publicize something or someone good on a regular basis. But big surprise, just like decisions to eat perfectly and exercise six days a week, I slipped. I even forgot all about it for a while. Then something difficult and sad happened recently and left me trying to figure out how to turn a negative and emotionally scary situation around. Just when I was on the verge of admitting defeat, about to sink beneath a feeling that I couldn't influence the situation, I remembered. I need to create a well of positive energy. So, one positive thing to put out on this blog, every day.

Labels: gk1, people, s.p.e.e.d.ing

I've always enjoyed Blackford Oakes, William F. Buckley's mucho macho CIA hero, main character of ten previous fun, intruiging (yes, that's a pun) stories. In what is almost certainly the last one, Last Call for Blackford Oakes, Blackford poses as a publishing scion to enter Moscow to prevent an assassination and aid the end of the Cold War (remember that Buckley is big Ronald Reagan fan). The book seemed deliciously promising. I was so looking forward to a juicy ultra-verbal tale. But instead we've got an insouciant disappointment. For starters, this writer whose fingers would in the past have fallen right off had he typed so much as a trite word or phrase has his manly hero who saved a queen and decked most of the KGB fall utterly in love with one glance and has the tough Soviet doctor become all girly and silly as they both turn their lives upside down. Oakes fails to take minimal precautions even I would take and manages to cause murder and mayhem just like that. Oh, yeah, and Graham Greene shows up - spy novelist extraordinaire himself - attending a conference and chit-chatting with arguably the most famous spy in the world, Kim Philby, who in turn becomes Oakes' bete noir. Hasn't there been a lot of talk and fuss about the danger of fictionalized history? What possessed Buckley? This is way beyond implausible, even beyond cliched and obvious, full of made-for-television plot twists and emotional devices. I must finish it just to find out how Oakes meets his rather obviously telegraphed demise (title, anyone?) but I have to sharpen my skimming skills or I'll go mad (make that 'more mad than I already am' and, yes, read 'mad' in both its meanings).

Labels: reflections, writing

I actually know the reason they can't (bds) but what a shame that some people probably didn't let themselves see the decency and kindness President Bush showed to each and every family member at three separate memorial services yesterday. Can you imagine getting up and knowing that you're going to be in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, spending the day with family and friends of nearly three thousand still grieving citizens? I know it's his job and I know he loves the personal part of his work, but for a human being to share nearly ten thousand people's raw and sad emotions in the course of one day must be, well, hard though also inspiring and heartfelt. I watched the Flight 93 service on C-Span last night and thought it was remarkable in many ways, not least for its simplicity and sweetness. I was struck by the President's quiet and attentive moments with every single person there - shaking hands, hugging, giving autographs when asked, taking photographs, squatting down to talk with children, over and over and over. And you know how babies pat you when you hold them, and how sweet it is? Many people patted him as he talked with them, and it seemed so genuine, gentle and comforting.

Labels: gwb, huh?

There are many ways to observe today. One I recommend is to read the gentle, powerful article by Peggy Noonan about the sounds and words of 9/11. It was in the Wall Street Journal and I also saved it here. It's evocative and touching (read: bring a tissue). Although I wasn't in Manhattan that day and therefore did not hear the sounds myself, clearly the sounds must have been puzzling and shocking. And, like her, I was amazed at the calm and the abundance of the phone calls. It's amazing that "no one said anything unneeded, extraneous or small." I can't imagine being so clear-headed at such a time or that you would think of calling, let alone do it, so that your last moments are spent not in rancor, bitterness or anger but by telling someone you care about that you are thinking of them and that you love them. How marvelous. If only no one would ever again have to plumb the profoundly deep kindness that, in moments of unavoidable crisis, some people discover in themselves. My own (small) part in the bloggers' tribute to the 2996 is displaying Joshua Vitale's profile, published in the NYT October 28, 2001.

Labels: people, reflections, s.p.e.e.d.ing

Update: Well, they caved. They cut <20 minutes from the first night. Among other things, they softened the statements about Clinton being too distracted by Monica and the impeachment aftermath to pay attention and make decisions about 'taking' Bin Laden when the Sudanese had him. It's nice to pile cowardice on top of cowardice, I always think, don't you? Clinton's own avoidance of taking responsibility for the Monica mess not being sufficient and definitely needing another daub of the yellow stuff from boat-rocking avoiders (a/k/a network executives).

Labels: movies, politics

My small part in the bloggers' tribute to the 2996 is posting Joshua Vitale's profile, published in the NYT October 28, 2001.

---

Joshua Vitale and Ina Weintraub had been best friends since they were seventh graders in Syosset, on Long Island. Two years ago, when they were 26, Mr. Vitale made a confession as they left the movies. " He said he'd been in love with me for many years and that if he didn't tell me this now he would always regret it," Ms. Weintraub said. "I was so blown away I didn't talk to him for three months. "When the dust settled, the couple's life together quickly fell into place. They got engaged and moved into an apartment in Great Neck, N.Y. Mr. Vitale, who had been a wanderer, a party animal and something of a lost soul for much of his 20's, got a job at Cantor Fitzgerald's trading desk."Once we got together it was like we were shooting for the stars," Ms. Weintraub said. "We were so happy."

Two days before Sept. 11, the couple tried to get tickets to the United States Open tennis tournament, without success. Josh said: 'Forget the Open. Why don't we go to the zoo?'" Ms. Weintraub said. The couple communed with the gorillas at the Bronx Zoo, and then Mr. Vitale, his wandering instincts intact, found a path where they had a picnic together. "There was nothing left unsaid between us," Ms. Weintraub said. " He knew how much I loved him and I will always know how much he loved me."

Labels: people, politics

Sometimes all the other things that are happening or not happening, working or not working, making us miserable or annoyed or whatever, need to just fade into insignificance. Some children and their parents need our prayers, thoughts, positive energy, etc.: A Storm In Afghanistan: My Hardest Post.

Labels: reflections

Quite a lot of things happened between January 25, 1993 and October 12, 2000, presented for your reading enjoying at under the title "Who was president when all this happened?". Read it.

Labels: politics

How is that the French language is so gorgeous and expressive, and such fun to read and speak, although French politics are confused and confusing, and some French people are so arrogant and smug?

Labels: france, reflections

I had the date wrong yesterday - the two-part series will run Sunday and Monday (9/10 and 9/11) which makes sense. According to an article on Yahoo's news page, ABC states that although the production is still being edited a bit and perhaps "slightly tweaked in response to concerns that it unfairly attacks the Clinton administration for failure to act on terrorist threats in the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001", they say that they have "not bowed to pressure from former Cabinet members and left-wing groups to "dump," "yank" or otherwise pull the movie from the schedule." One can only hope.

Update1: The Anchoress has several interesting posts on this. Like many of us, she is dismayed about the implications of Clinton's demands for revision or withdrawal. Furthermore, she read a review that says the show is more boring than challenging, so Clinton would have been better off shrugging it off and letting it fade. She also wonders what the implications will be on his wife's positions, but a. few believe much of what either of them says and b. there is such a distance between them in so many ways, that it's probably irrelevant.

Update2: H/tips to the ever-interesting Eratosthenes for Tempest in a Teapot's must-read on this and to musing Laura for this right-on summary.

Labels: movies, politics

The 9/11 series to be aired tonight on ABC apparently makes a case that the Clinton administration may have dropped the ball as far as letting Bin Laden organize his vicious cadre of bullies, and the film apparently suggests that the reason is that Clinton and his closest advisers were preoccupied with the Lewinsky matter and its aftermath. Which is quite understandable, even if you think the whole thing was overblown (excuse me) but also plausible. The film may not have every single fact about what happened - many undoubtedly are permanently consigned to the eternal archive of national security secrecy - but why not let us see it?

In over 250 hours of interviews, various people offered statements about their experiences at the time. Some may be one-sided or small or partial views and therefore not the 'whole picture', but who sees the whole picture of anything? And of course the film will now be viewed by tons more people than would have done.

Doesn't it seem likely that Clinton himself as well as other decision-makers in his administration were way too consumed with the machinations about Monica and possible impeachment to be 'bothered' with some angry guy lurking in the hills of Afghanistan with a bunch of similarly irritable fellows. Remember how thoroughly the Lewinsky matter took over absolutely everything? The jokes about "all Monica, all the time"? And that was for us regular folks, way far away from the epicenter of it all.

I am astonished, appalled, dismayed, querulous, baffled, confused, disgusted... I can't think of any more adjectives ... about Clinton's public outcry. What the heck is wrong with him? Can you IMAGINE the reaction if George Bush said "edit it or pull it" about anything that was written about him or his administration??!!! Even though it's been factually demonstrated that many of the things said about GWB during Katrina, for example, were flat-out false, no one has apologized or changed their original reporting. Even though the Rather/Mapes reporting on the National Guard memo was proved to be false, and deliberately so, GWB never made a public stink or said "air at your peril". How in heaven's name does a supposedly likeable, trustworthy and cheery free speech advocate (Clinton) dare to demand changes and demand that if the changes are not made, the film be pulled?! Now there is some rumoring that ABC may be making changes. WHAT?!! And one broadcaster whose intellect I (usually) respect said "hmm, you think they might want to be accurate?" Huh? Does the fact that the film supports some things that GWB has said make it certain that it's false?

Don' t you wonder even more, now, what the facts and opinions in the film are? Do you suppose it's so damning that his reputation will tank completely even among current fans, as a result? I'm guessing it's nowhere near that damaging - what could be? - so I just do not understand the fuss. And anyway, suppose the film airs without any changes (please!) - couldn't there be an 'answer'? This country, after all, is the home of truly free speech, often to some people's disgust, but always to our glory, and never to our peril.

Labels: movies, politics

I dutifully went on a car hunting expedition (admittedly half-heartedly), first stopping at a Nissan dealer which has been recommended by a friend, but they were closed (on Labor Day?!). Then I wandered the Suburu and Toyota lots where the cars looked like farmers' market vegetables at the end of a hot day (dusty and wilted) and way too many incomplete papers on the cars. Can you say car dealers are out to get you? A couple of no-name dealers (you know the kind: Jenny's Auto Mart - not a real name) had some cute cars but I assume one should steer clear of them unless you know they're okay. My last stop was at a big dealership with, they proudly say, five locations. The salesman showed me a few kind-of-okay cars, none ideal, and then he walked me to his desk to talk numbers even though I hadn't driven or chosen anything. He asked for my license and current registration saying he wanted to see what he could offer on trade-in (is that the way it's usually done?). When he tucked the photocopies into his desk calendar it kind of freaked me out and then he went off to do something unexplained (which I later learned was getting plates so we could test drive). When he came back I asked for the photocopy (it just occurred to me that I hope it was the only one). He seemed upset and asked what he'd done wrong; he looked puzzled when I said he was putting the cart (trading in my car) before the horse (me picking a car). His manager came over, wearing fewer pinkie rings but seeming more sleezy in that he grinned a lot and said gee he had just the car for me coming in later this week so he'll call me about it. Golly. Here's hoping next weekend will be better.

Labels: about me, shopping, whining

Today I have to make a first pass at buying a new (or new-old) car. Mine is 10 years old and the inspection won't pass so it's just got to be done and today is almost the last day of the dealers' clear the lots of last year's models sales. Once I get there, I probably will be fine but it's hard to gear (heh) myself up to be choosy and decisive, all the while fending off the wily car salesmen.

Labels: about me, silliness, whining

Three sites that I visit regularly are having errors, saying "Unable to connect to database server" and "Can't connect to MySQL" and "WordPress database error: [Out of memory]". On some level, it's good news that this happens to non-blogger.com sites, but it's frustrating because there's no way to alert anyone without an email address. Maybe the internet wanted everyone to take today off.

Labels: blogs (mine), whining

Lest you doubted me when I said there is something amazing about Oklahomans who blog, the 2006 Okie Blogs Awards nominees have been announced. Unfortunately you can only vote if you are an Okie blogger yourself, which definitely leaves northeasterner me out, but I'm there in spirit. Big surprise (not) -- Dustbury is up for best blog and A Sweet Familiar Dissonance is up for best culture blog. It IS a surprise that there are so many others and that I only know a very few of them. What fun lies in store for us all!

Labels: blogs (others')

I hereby declare myself a fan of actor Peter Mullan. A Scotsman with a craggy, brooding look that lights up like something utterly wonderful when he smiles, he's becoming quite the star, with two Venice Golden Prizes (for acting (My Name is Joe) and directing (The Magdalene Sisters)), a Cannes pris d'or (for directing the Magdalenes), Toronto awards and various others. Several reviews of his work online and interviews galore (here, here, here, here, for starters) make it evident that he's quite interesting. But the real pleasure is in watching him onscreen - which is the point, after all, right? I saw On a Clear Day last night, a 2005 film about which he said, in an interview with SF Gate, "I quite like this film at its core -- it's quite sloshy, quite sentimental in that regard" which isn't a bad description except that it's sentimental only in the sense that it doesn't leave you wanting to slit your wrists, like many of the harder-edged films he's made. Which isn't to demean those, just that since I'm all too aware that human beings can be dreadful, sometimes I quite enjoy a film that makes me feel good about human nature.

Labels: movies, people

The other day I said I was out of sorts because of the endless rain. Although it's rained now for ten days, off and on, with a promise of at least one more, I feel a bit better partly because I hate feeling bad for long and try to get in a better mood, if I can. Also, Ligneus left a comment that "the way to deal with rain is to revel in it, to walk in it and to think of the awful places where it rains once in a long while and instead of the beautiful mist you get dust." I certainly agree except that I'm over ten and don't have Wellies. Ligneus grew up in England had Wellington boots, raincoats (presumably slickers like mine) and "Sou'Westers, [a hat something like you see in old prints of lifeboatmen]." Mind you, I've spent several months in the UK over the last ten years or so and it's rarely rained. But he perpetuates the story line and extols the virtues of "every kind of rain, Scotch Mist, drizzle, ordinary old rain, April showers, summer downpours and especially winter storms by the sea, all of them enjoyable in their different ways if you don't resist them and think them unpleasant". As I think and say at least once a month or two, oh to be in England!!

Labels: about me, blogs (others'), friends, weather

Palm Beach Story, one of Preston Sturges' masterpieces, is being broadcast on TCM today. This is one of those perfect little movies in which there's not a false move or one line of dialogue out of place. Robert Y. Dudley plays my favorite character, the founder of a line of best-selling sausages, nicknamed the "wienie king". (Dudley studied oral surgery in college, then founded the Troupers Club and became an actor.) Claudette Colbert and Joel McCrea play Tom and Gerry Jeffers, recently married and still very much in love but beset by money troubles because Tom is an inventor and architect with no clients. They are about to be evicted when the wienie king and his wife are shown the apartment. The king adores Gerry so much that he hands her a whole bunch of dough (it was always called dough then) with which she pays their bills and buys a lovely new dress. No surprise, Tom is sure Gerry was alluring, not just an innocent charmer. Gerry decides that if Tom doesn't trust her, their marriage has no chance so she decides to get a divorce and goes to Palm Beach on the recommendation of a taxi driver (played by Frank Faylen, later the cab driver in Wonderful Life and the put-upon father of Dobie Gillis). Tom follows her to Palm Beach, determined not to lose her but inept at winning her back as he is inept and cross, in the most charming possible way, of course. And it's no surprise that quirky characters abound all along the way, from waiters to conductors to Rudy Vallee playing an eccentric millionaire with a man-grabbing sister played by Mary Astor. Hey, the singing dogs on the train to Palm Beach are worth the price of admission all by themselves.

BTW, my post title is from a statement Sturges made, that "a pretty girl is better than a plain one/ A leg is better than an arm/ A bedroom is better than a living room/ An arrival is better than a departure/ A birth is better than a death/ A chase is better than a chat/ A dog is better than a landscape/ A kitten is better than a dog/ A baby is better than a kitten/ A kiss is better than a baby/ A pratfall is better than anything."

Labels: movies, writing

Andre Agassi has made it to the third round of the U.S. Open. He's an old man as far as tennis is concerned but still has the mental sharpness and physical strength to do well. Plus, he seems to be a nice guy with a wife and kids he respects. Sixty is reputed to be the new thirty, but he makes it seem as if age is almost irrelevant. For those of us who would like to defy death - don't bother me with facts or reality - this is lovely. Update: He lost in the 3rd round. Wonderful farewell.

Labels: people, s.p.e.e.d.ing

Playing Fiddling with layout again. I hope any dear rare reader doesn't lose his or her balance. I can't help myself any more than I used to be able to resist moving furniture. Are these conditions listed in the DSM?

Labels: blogs (mine)

The Super Adventures of Ben and Noah is a new blog written by two very young boys who "created a wonderful place" (it is!) which looks better than many (hmm), reads well (how old are they?!) and is one of the blogs remembering the WTC 2,996. They've also got nifty items for sale adorned with their (really quite charming) artwork because their "Mom and Dad said we needed to learn the real world applications of 'supply and demand'. Mainly, we had demands and they had limited supplies of the money needed to pay for those demands. After counting the cars that go by our house, we realized that we needed something Better Than A Lemonade Stand....This is what we came up with to earn money and learn about what it takes to run a successful business. We appreciate your support and hope that you will be inspired to tell your friends about us." Visit, be amazed, and enjoy.

Labels: blogs (others')