There's tons of chatter about backwards support for Sanjaya perhaps bringing down American Idol. Ligneus pointed me to a blog post which linked to a Times (of London) article about how the UK version was brought down similarly. People who don't like the show are delighted, as are people who have problems with phenomena that succeed on this kind of scale. (Ain't human nature lovely sometimes?) That hunger strike some woman is on was (is?) a joke, for heaven's sake, beginning with a hyperbolic "I'm not going to eat again until Sanjaya's off" and now everyone talks as if someone's actually starving to death over the androgynous bad singer. Puleez give me a break. If Sanjaya were to bring it down, it would mean that either the producers haven't controlled the votes or that they do and they're tired of the show and figure this is an amusing way to shut it down. What do you think?

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

Every American has the right to be prosperous. That's Obama's recent assertion and I agree. It's unclear whether he thinks government should provide that prosperity but assuming he means that it should provide the opportunity for everyone, I'm with him. Of course, who wouldn't be? Remember that old "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing? There was a good book about this a few years ago, Carl Cannon's The Pursuit of Happiness in a Time of War, which asserted a similar point. It seems to me it's like the parental encouragement about being able to do or be anything you want - it's true but it doesn't mean that we should expect prosperity to be handed to us. Each of us is responsible for pursuing happiness and prosperity. Language allows us to fashion how we think about and pursue them both.

Labels: economics, gk1

Let me begin by saying I'm a fan of Fox News. And that I love Brian Kilmeade's mild insanities on weekday Fox & Friends. And that I'm all for mixing humor with almost anything. I don't hate pretty young blond women. And I love that Fox's deliverers talk without stepfordesque intoning, mechanical smiles and mono-idea-atic stories like many other channels. BUT the oh-so-cute-new-blond girl is too much.

Wouldn't you think they could have found someone just as pretty who actually had a whole entire brain to which her mouth was connected? Sometimes she asks a question or reads a whole statement and then sits up with a "there, I did it" look at the camera, and sometimes she actually tosses her hair and looks at the monitor. Really. I'm not kidding. She's that amateurish and embarrassing. When she reads from the teleprompter, sometimes she flips words, then laughs a little and sometimes says "oops". This morning she was in the middle of a piece on the pet food problem and began a sentence with the words "Some people think . . . " and just stopped talking. A pause and brief chuckle later, Kelly Wright saved the moment, consummate professional that he is. Look, I admit she's pretty but so are lots of people and she's not a smart enough journalist even of the T&A variety that Fox prefers, most of whom have brains as well as other accoutrements. And even though he drooled when he talked about her on YouTube, I am grateful that, today, Greg Kelly didn't lean on her chair arm and leer.

Best of all, in a truly onomatopoeic moment, Courtney led off the last story of the morning on a book called "Faking it" which suggests you can "fake it to make it". It's an amusing idea, by the way, and some people (who? who??) actually live it to the teeth.

Labels: people, tv

I've seen this before but now I have my very own copy thanks to Bald-headed Geek. It's hilarious. Be forewarned be very forewarned.

Labels: fun

Terrific post at the Anchoress in which she discusses reactions to some of her thoughts and opinions. I entirely, thoroughly, totally concur that clear thinking does not necessarily mean one comes down on the obviously left or right side (politically speaking) of a topic, and even more that:

All one can do - really - is try to hold on to one’s own capacity for kindness and see one’s humanity reflected in another.
What’s that old quote: Be kind - for everyone you meet is engaged in a mighty struggle. You don’t have to have any religion at all to take that good advice.

Read the whole thing.

Labels: people, reflections

Is there any difference between a woman having to wear a scarf in a Muslim country and women having to wear scarves and have their ankles covered in order to enter churches in Italy and France? When I travelled to Europe, we always brought scarves and slacks so we could visit cathedrals, regardless of our own religious or societal practices.

In that regard, there's an impassioned, interesting piece at Roger L. Simon today on the covering of women in Muslim countries. He is absolutely outraged that no so-called feminists (Jane Fonda, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.) have expressed outraged at the treatment of the British woman soldier being made to cover up and parade in front of cameras. My first reaction was to agree and be pleased that he spoke with such force. My second reaction is to wonder why it infuriates him so much that the woman in particular is being treated badly. For men, there is nothing as obvious about the demeaning attitude the captors have for them, but when the young man spoke about how wrong they had been, I believe it was every bit as difficult and certainly just as repellent.

I wholeheartedly agree that women going along with covering up may have been interpreted and seen as capitulation. Unfortunately we can't go back and refuse to do so. As a child and adult tourist, I hated wearing scarves and slacks because we "had" to and I felt it was not a mark of respect but a capitulation to irrational demands, a way of making us feel subject to their will rather than our own. I understood that tourists generally felt they should "be polite" but it didn't seem as if that was the point and I vehemently disagreed with it. Nonetheless. . . .

Anyway, I can't help but wonder where the outrage about Faye Turney's treatment is coming from. It seems sudden and larger than the provocation. There have been so many; why this? Is it a remnant of sexism (i.e. separatism), just in egalitarianism clothing? What do you think?

Labels: places, politics, reflections

These excerpts from an interview with Newt Gingrich quoted by Ligneus, (a) are a sign of what I like about Newt's strength and ideas, and (b) provide a small insight into how things are really done. Much politics - both international and national - take place with people calling and quietly making suggestions and points, rather than bellowing to the four corners of the earth. Just like business and personal negotiations, actually. I've always said I'm not sure it's useful or even interesting when "men in the street" weigh in. Remember the interviews with passersby during the hostage stand-off (Carter/Reagan)? Didn't they seem unbelievably pointless? Yeah, okay, sometimes a not-insider has a brilliant idea about how to handle something, but usually it takes knowing the myriad details and personalities. Anyway, point to Newt and oh if only he didn't have major electability baggage. And good luck to Blair who's had enormous 'je ne sais quoi' and hopefully still does even if it's not as visible as it used to be.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Addendum to bloghop rules - minimum is now 3. It's too time consuming to visit and attentively read and review 5 blogs (unless I were disciplined enough to write drafts and save them in the time between Thursdays (which I'm not) and I totally do not want this to turn into a school requirement). Maybe fewer to read will give me time to be incredibly perceptive and insightful.

1. From Man About Mayfair, I chanced upon a link to Mr. and Mrs. P. which turns out to be Patum Peperium, a blog purportedly by a husband and wife living in midwest America and writing about history both past and in-the-making. It's very quirky and very Catholic (as well as catholic) and very British. There's lots about art and lots about intellectual exercise. All in a wry, somewhat sarcastic and (dare I say) sardonic tone of voicewords. An acquired taste, I suspect, but clearly worth working to acquire.

2. Andrew Cusack is an interesting guy who's young enough to justify his obvious bemusement with himself, and accomplished and thoughtful enough to justify ours in the same. He grew up in Westchester but attended St. Andrew's University in Scotland (arguably the most gorgeous countryside in the universe) and now is Assistant Editor at the New Criterion. He clearly is having a blast and wants to share some intellectual and sporting escapades and thoughts, to readers' not inconsiderable benefit. How many "about" sections include two international charities? And how many blogs include a phrase such as "a friend in tweed is a friend indeed". A decidedly quirky place - also highly enjoyable and definitely one to revisit often. Plus I need to find out why Charles of Austria is pictured, let alone supplicated to!

3. Random Pensées is an interesting place, a surprise because I expected it to be intensely intellectual and slightly pretentious given the Pascalian overtone of the name and all. Its author is in his late 30's and is a corporate lawyer in the NY City (which certainly made me perk up since my fantastic employers could be his). He's got a wife, three children about whom he writes "a lot" because, he says, "they are a source of never ending amazement for me" (which made me smile because it reminded me of TTCGITW). He speaks two foreign languages and has lived abroad. All of which "has confirmed my staunch belief that the United States of America, for all its faults, is the single greatest country in the world and I am terribly fortunate that my great-grandparents chose to try their luck here." He also has "a love affair with the City of New York" and loves "architecture and art history, travel, fine wines and spirits, good eats, fencing, martial arts, squash, international affairs, billiards, and good conversation". Yesterday's post/essay was a discussion of "how ideology guides and informs mental health treatment and risk education for college age, and younger, women." The previous post on going to "math day" at his daughter's school and then to the Westport beach was idyllic and wonderful. What a find.

Labels: blogs (others')

The choices are so many.
-- Sanjaya should have gone weeks ago but between VFTW and Howard Stern and apparently legions of teenyboppers, hasn't and won't yet. As for the others:
-- Simon drools too much over Haley's legs to let her go yet even though her singing is somewhere between unmemorable and bad (yes, I think judges and producers change votes when they want to).
-- Gina did herself proud last night and it would be seriously cool to have a girl rocker in the last batch.
-- Various blogs are waxing rhapsodicpleasant about the Bland Boys (Chris R., Phil and Blake) so I doubt they're going yet.
-- Melinda and Lakisha are in it til one of those "shocking" goings home (hey, someone has to end up alone at the end, right?).
-- Jordin's a bit weak to carry the whole thing and anyway she's a judge favorite so American telephoners might not vote her to continue just because of that, but I think it's not quite time to get rid of people who can actually sing, so . . .
-- I'm going to predict Chris Sligh as the bootee this week; he was off key and surprisingly surly which isn't likely to have endeared him to people who want to spend money on his behalf.

FWIW, I called the last two but not in writing so can't prove it. Will I jinx myself by putting it here?

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

I've been reading several bloggers who are disdainful and/or bemused about the ban on plastic bags in grocery stores in San Francisco. For a fairly rare moment, I am in agreement with SF. In Dutchess County (NY), all the grocery stores I frequent have encouraged using cloth bags for the last decade. It actually makes lots of sense because they hold more, are easier to carry, can be carried on shoulders so you can hoist several at once easily, are washable, are much easier to pack comfortably, and - oh yes - they're tons better for our uber mother (earth). I hate the rickety thin tiny plastic bags most stores use, don't you?? And don't you love it when useful ideas jibe with 'hot' ideas?!

Labels: headlines

As if we care in any real or fundamental sense, but I am relieved to know that there's a reasonable (although slightly odd) explanation for the bump on the top of the head of the medical expert who keeps showing up to talk about Anna Nicole Smith. The first several times I saw him, I worried that it was my television but then I remembered that non-tube tv's don't waft out of resolution as they age (showing my own, however). I suppose we can't test out this theory on anyone, though, can we? (H/t texas scribbler)

Labels: headlines, people

It didn't go on as long as I'd have liked since I like things like this to get wild, but 7 isn't too bad for a first time, right? And the word morphed from jones to muley which if you take the nuances and fifth-level meanings of both of them, makes for an interesting transition indeed. (New one on Sunday.)

Labels: fun

Does anyone seriously expect that any of the ten people who sang tonight can be rehearsed and/or trained and/or beaten into shape enough to produce anything we'd want to buy even out of a cardboard on-sale box? The songs tonight were boring or silly and the outfits were early-seventies ugly. Sanjaya's hair was so ridiculous that your average pre-teen would be embarrassed (I hope) although his singing wasn't the worst of the bunch so, heaven help us, he'll undoubtedly be back to frighten us again (and make Venomous Kate have to boycott chocolate for at least another week). Simon keeps saying that singing is the point of this exercise, which is a tad disingenuous and only partly true, since entertainers can be honed in the studio if the package merits the work. Whatever, I think Lakisha is too boring (though she can be jazzed up when she get a contract), Haley is gorgeous but way too hair-falls and bland, Melinda seems way too sweet to be real and I still think she's a ringer, Sligh loses breath and voice on many lines, Sanjaya is just plain awful, Blake is described as 'nice' by some but seems almost non-existent to me because he's so bland, Richardson disappears into vacuity to me, Phil can sing when he slows down and concentrates but can he do it more than once?, Jordin has punch and a good voice but isn't interesting, and Gina has oomph but only two dimensions. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

So - do you think that talking about something that annoys you means you're a negative person, a complainer? How about if you're complaining about something that's actually unpleasant or bad? Should we always just smile about everything? (Can you say "hair shirt"?)

I'd be curious to know what any rare readers think about a person who expresses frustration or anger. How do you distinguish between someone who's expressing a frustration and someone who is a complainer? Do you react differently when it's a man or woman speaking?

Consider people who become sick because they internalize their feelings, especially their negative feelings (migraines, colitis, back pain, hives, etc.). (I guess Rosie O'Donnell will certainly never be one of them!) And is there a difference if the anger is because of genuinely difficult things?

Labels: anger, reflections

Wonderful that Fred T. is apparently causing a stir (read about it here). If he's what he seems, he'll change the campaign from a ghastly thing to avoid at all costs to something fun and interesting and hopeful. (That's a big "if", of course.) And even if he's not the golden calf (to mix just a few metaphors), I love it when political know-it-alls are proved to be do-not-know-it-alls.

Abjectly miserably horrible that Tony Snow apparently is sick again (here). He's one of the calmest, nicest, most rational, smartest and most lucid people in the governmental arena and any of those superlatives should have earned him a pass on further medical problems.

Labels: gk1, people, politics

My friend's daughter's daughter, who is 7, allowed me to cut her hair today. Quite an accomplishment apparently because she's refused to let it be cut until now. She'd agreed to let me do it last time she visited but time got away from us. By today, her hair was almost to her waist. The main motivator is that it often snarled or knotted, and as we girls can surely remember, it's ghastly to have knots brushed or combed out by insistent mothers.

When we began, as we were talking about how much to cut, her mom mentioned Locks of Love so we looked it up and learned that they require 10" and that anyone can do the cutting (whew) and that the clean hair needs to be sent in a plastic bag and can even be braided if one were so inclined. They welcome photos and notes from the donor, too, which sounds really nice! Ten inches turned out to be just the right amount, not too much and not too little. And I'm happy to say that the result is lovely. The front is slightly longer than the back and swings charmingly when she shakes her head. Plus, she can still tuck the front behind her ears, which she likes. And it will be much cooler in the summer. Of course, I saw places that could have used better technique, but I didn't want to keep snipping and shaping until it was half an inch long all over. (I still have bad memories of my mother cutting my bangs so short and straight that I wanted to hide under a table or, preferably, run away from home.) In the end, parents and grandparents were pleased and, best of all, she liked it a lot! A successful venture.

This was lots more fun than going to an office every morning; maybe I should think about a change of career, one I can do from home? Is there such a thing as a fifty-something coiffuriste?

Labels: about me, friends, reflections

In books about Paris or that are set there, mention is invariably made of one or another arrondissement. If one is thoroughly in the know, this is automatically informative because each area has its own persona just as do London's Soho and NYC's Tribeca and all the other named neighborhoods of those great cities. Arrondissments, however, are something of a mystery to non-Parisians. The entire city of Paris is quite walkable (40 square miles total (for perspective: San Francisco=47 sq.mi., Boston=89 and Manhattan=20)) and those cities' neighborhoods are all so distinctive, with their names helping to understand them. Paris' arrondissements' numbers tell nothing, however, so étrangers don't have much to go on. Now comes along the gracious proprietor of ParisDailyPhoto, who by the way does far more more on his blog than display a photo each day, and provides a succinct explanation:

Paris is divided into 20 districts called arrondissements, numbered from 1 to 20 in a clockwise spiral like an escargot (snail) starting from the centre (the île de la Cité and île Saint Louis). Each arrondissement has its own culture... I will come back to that one day!

Now I can't wait for his descriptions.

Labels: blogs (others'), france, places

Fun goings-on at Electric Venom, a Word Fugue whose idea is to start with a word ("jones" in this case) and add whatever word comes to mind, one at a time. Players can add words as often as they like but cannot repeat their words. "Fugue" is probably the perfect name.

And it brings to mind another word game I like where you start with a word and change just one letter at a time. In one version you have a limited number of moves to get from the word to a specified end word. Another version is open-ended. I can't check in here often today, but I'll start this and see what happens. Let's piggyback off EV and start with jones and see where it goes, one letter at a time.

Labels: blogs (others'), fun

Some blog entries don't have anything to do with anything earth-shattering or of any particular import. From the getting-to-know-your-blogger point of view, that's fine, right? In that spirit, I have to say that I'm not sure which god I unknowingly pleased, but TCM has scheduled a few movies that I like this morning. I almost didn't even look because lately their Sunday fare has been movies I love but saw recently or movies I actually don't like. Happily, this morning's knitting-my-fingers-to-the-bone company includes Lew Ayres, Cary Grant, Yves Montand, Kate Hepburn, Gene Tierney and Edward Everett Horton.

Labels: movies

Must knit my little fingers to the bone today, so blogging will be light or non-existent.

Labels: blogs (mine)

An article in yesterday's New York Times on a strange kind of homesteading in New York City (which I will post on my articles page) leaves me between amazed and sad. Even if everything is true that's asserted by the most hopeless global warmists, it is inconceivable that there is any purpose to doing without toilet paper other than to feel at one with fourth world societies. What is it about some Americans that they feel good when they try so hard to deny the world and selves in which they live? Is it really about guilt, do you suppose? We have so much and some have so little? How does this family's using computers at a community center actually make any difference to anything? If everyone in America only used community services rather than one's own, it would save a bit of electricity, mean fewer computers manufactured, fewer administrative demands on various people, ultimately fewer jobs and reduced production. Using no toilet paper or anything else disposable and having worms in your garbage rather than sending it to a landfill or recycling means a ranker home to which fewer people will visit meaning less demand for transportation. Recognizing that such people may be motivated by essential kindness, they also have an over-developed sense of self-importance, I'm afraid. Real problems need real solutions (and the problems aren't even accurately defined yet).

Acting primitive in the middle of New York City in 2007 is neither germane nor useful, and it's silly.

Labels: headlines, modern culture

It's silly but I like things that limit you on the outside because then you're free as a bird inside. The deal is to answer with neither fewer nor more than three words. (h/t Dustbury and Melessa)

01. Where is your cell phone? in my purse
02. Boyfriend/girlfriend? missing in history
03. Hair? shoulder length, style-less
04. Your mother? believed in daisies
05. Your father? smart, jazzy, serious
06. Your favorite item(s)? books, shawls, pillows
07. Your dream last night? novel writing, selling
08. Your favorite drink? room temperature coffee
09. Your dream guy/girl? does not exist
10. The room you are in? knitting office den
11. Your fear? dying before 100
12. What do you want to be in 10 years? older, wiser, calmer
13. Who did you hang out with last night? me and A.I.
14. What are you not? tall, thin, blond
15. Are you in love? alas not now
16. One of your wish list items? money: storage furniture
17. What time is it? ten after ten
18. The last thing you did? removed shoes, socks
19. What are you wearing? skirt, sweater, earrings
20. Your favorite book? (one?!) Austen's Persuasion
21. The last thing you ate? turkey/lettuce wrap
22. Your life? hard to say
23. Your mood? upbeat sometimes sad
24. Your friends? few fabulous funny
25. What are you thinking about right now? writing accurately, well
26. Your car? fabulous blue coupe
27. What are you doing at this moment? this meme (duh)
28. Your summer? eagerly anticipated, enjoyed
29. Your relationship status? blessed with granddaughters
30. What is on your TV screen? Raines then Becker
31. When is the last time you laughed? recently (love laughing!)
32. Last time you cried? recent Becker episode
33. School? loved homework, philosophy

Labels: blogs (others'), reflections

1. I discovered Electric Venom after reading a comment to the Anchoress' post on this week's Idol show (which is worth checking out, by the way). EV is wry, reads well, looks good and has lots going on. What more could a person want? I especially like her writing about some Californian's plan to go on a hunger strike until Sanjaya is voted off Idol, and EV's own plan to give up chocolate til then. (Why people want to give a way-too-pretty boy that kind of power and influence on their lives is beyond me, but that's a different subject.) She's a homeschooling "over-educated stay-at-home mom" who lives in Kansas. Yeeha! I am crazy about Kansas myself. I could quote lots more stuff about EV but I'd basically just reprint the whole thing, so read her About page and the blog. It's a delight.

2. I Think, Therefore I Blog is another of EV's blogs. She says it's "not intended for anyone else’s entertainment but [her] own" so she writes about homeschooling, keeping her home and garden, and parenting. It gives her "a space to bitch so my family doesn’t have to put up with it from me" which sounds like a really good idea for a blog. If you like personal blogs, this one's terrific.

3. EV links to Musing Minds and once the page loads (its stone background is gorgeous but makes it load slowly) one finds a gorgeous photo and a really interesting read. Like EV, kimsch has points of view with which I generally concur and a practical reasonable outlook. The lead today is about a school in West Yorkshire (England) that's proposing to rename the three little pigs to three little puppies. Sheesh!! Apparently they feared the pigs might offend but at least one Muslim leader thinks otherwise ("Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain branded the move 'bizarre' [saying that] [The vast majority of Muslims have no problem whatsoever with the Three Little Pigs. It's always been the traditional way of telling the story and I don't see why that should be changed.") My only complaint is that I can't find "about" so I have no idea who kimsch is and why MM is so good.

4. Mover Mike is written by a self-described retired stockbroker who supports his wife's furniture business. (Where can I find someone like that?) An Oregonean, he leads off today with a report that Hillary dined with the Plames Wilsons and Sidney Blumenthal recently (adding to my fondness for Hillary). He's got lots to say - and succinctly - about many things political, educational, social, geographical, etc. It's interesting to read about the many earthquakes in Oregon! Who knew? He's got a nice write-up of Tuesday's Idol show and, since his opinions matched mine, obviously he's a keen observer of many things so I'll keep on reading his blog.

5. I decided to check out Landfair Furniture's blog - Mover Mike's wife's blog devoted to interior design and furniture, not surprisingly. What IS surprising is that it is interesting cuz I figured it would be dry stuff about measurements and focus points and all. I especially liked the guidelines for real world decorating as opposed to on tv. And the stuff about small spaces is awesome. The links are interesting and there's tons of color discussion. It's a terrific blog!

Which is it for this week. Hope you enjoy the meandering.

Labels: a.i., a.i.6, blogs (others')

Stephanie is out. She had a nice voice and looked great when performing. Even Dial Idol didn't have her at the bottom. Am I going to have to accept that the producers stack the votes for whatever reason? Does America-who-watches-Idol really like to watch and hear Sanjaya, for heavens sake, or is this the we-prefer-to-watch-train-wrecks aspect of the show?

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

Ironically enough, today is both the day after Saint AG appeared in DC and is the 104th anniversary of a drought at Niagara Falls. Have you ever been there? do you realize the amount of water that had to have dried up!? I find it impossible to believe that humans' electronic and other energy usage during the last hundred years has been worse than all the coal and other putrid wastes expelled during the previous hundred years. And I can't believe that this warm cycle is worse than any other ever in the universe if it was so hot and dry in 1903 that Niagara Falls had too little water.

Labels: headlines, history

After three extremely cold and snowy months in the northeast, one finds it hard to understand the enthusiasm with which some are jumping on the possibly unstable bandwagon called global warming. Not to mention the self-deification of its primary spokesperson, a behavior which usually irks Americans. It gores galls me and I wish someone would explain why the many skeptical scientists are overlooked as if mere dirt smudges on a fantasy radar screen.

Labels: headlines, reflections

And now there are 11 but soon there will be 10. Seems like Jordin and Melinda will be in the sing-off at the end (although I like Gina too, I have to admit). Course, someone I don't particularly like may have a fan base.... And hey, isn't A.I. supposed to be for amateurs?? Melinda's so controlled that I keep waiting to hear she's a ringer. Also, if I listen to the boys without watching, a few are tolerable, but none seem close to having a good voice. What do any rare readers think?

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

Sorry for not posting the last couple of days. Very busy and distracted. More to come today, though.

Labels: blogs (mine)

A cute idea. Visual who-are-you. It's a bit fun to do, too. (Thanks to Barb the Evil Genius whose visual dna isn't very different from mine - not surprising I suppose since we read each other's blogs. A tad disconverting to be in the under-10%-chose-like-me group except for two, though.) (Update - I removed the visual as it's way too big for a small page like this and it doesn't permit resizing or anything.)

Labels: about me, friends, fun

A wonderful surprise this morning. One of those movies that people 'in the know' apparently know is a really good movie - well-written, well-acted, nicely filmed, charming. It's proof that a script can have a point to make, yet do it with such a light touch that you don't feel preached to and are completely engrossed and entertained. It's an intense and interesting drama, and also a portrait of middle class American family life in the late forties and fifties. It's a gem. See it if you can.

Our Very Own opens as a silly young Natalie Wood in one of her first films (she was about 10) is pestering the men putting in the family's first television (in case you don't remember that home tv is only a few generations old). Soon we meet the parents (played by Jane Wyatt and Donald Cook) and the focus of the story, Gail (Ann Blyth). Gail is a fairly typical slightly giddy high school senior rushing around with friends and making lots of plans. When she mentions that she needs her birth certificate to apply for a job, Natalie Wood's character pulls down boxes until she finds it - and blurts out her discovery that Gail is adopted. Gail gets very upset, gets furious at her family, and insists on meeting her birth mother. Perfectly played by Ann Dvorak, Gert isn't a bad person in any way just someone with a different focus and emotional awareness than the Macaulays.

As Gail and the others work out their feelings, the script allows them to experience and interact with each other as they might actually do. Strikingly, wonderfully, they seem to have no fear of walking on eggshells as more contemporary characters so often do (not to mention real people!), and they show awareness of each other's concerns, with kindness. Plus, there's no stacking emotional decks by having 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. No one is horrible and no one is perfect. Everyone is realistic, showing trust, respect and caring to the others, just how we ourselves would hope to be.

One more thing. Although it's calmer and more adult than similar films today, in many ways this script could have been written an hour ago. There's even a nice light brush of social history provided by Gail giving a speech about citizenship at her graduation. There are students of several races in the graduating class and people from all walks of life, just like the real world, so when she makes a parallel between belonging to a new country and to a family, it's perfect.

Labels: adoption, movies, reflections

Do politicians ever think before they open their mouths and let words come out? Eight years ago they couldn't swipe at Clinton fast or often enough, to the point where it was really unpleasant to read the paper and listen to the news. Now they can't stop lambasting Bush, to the point where they criticize everything he does even if it was perfectly fine for others (e.g. firing the U.S. attorneys). Can't they just consider what they really think before they start talking? Would they lose votes that way? I doubt it. I suppose 24-hour cable is the problem because it's on all the time so people who want attention feel they must talktalktalk and be in front of us all the time so they just open their mouths without thinking for even a millisecond. I wish they'd stop.

Labels: politics

Thanks to ligneus' referral, a very good interview with / article on Thompson in the Wall Street Journal this morning. (Of course, like most print media, there's at least one error. It says one of Thompson's daughters died whereas it was a son, at least according to other sources although they may be the ones in error. The internet is wonderful but not a hundred percent reliable, eh?) Given the ridiculously early beginning of all this and the predictable and not especially interesting participants, Thompson's possible entry into the race certainly makes it more interesting. One of my questions is whether he really is as straight a shooter as he seems? Unlikely though it is, it sure would be refreshing to believe what a politician says.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

I watched two new shows last night pretty much because there was absolutely nothing else I wanted to watch since my faves were either superseded by first-round NCAA tournament games or in repeats (grrr). Also, to be fair, the reviews I read for both of them were complimentary (and these in the New York Times and written by Virginia Heffernan and Alexandra Stanley who are shall I say a tad dyspeptic when it comes to their reactions to things). Anyway, Andy Barker, P.I. is awfully quirky and may not hold me very long because both Andy Richter the actor and Andy Barker the character are just too cute and too daffy for me most of the time. On the other hand, as Heffernan says, "This peculiar series seals NBC’s new role as the skinflint’s HBO." She's got a real point since some of us haven't wanted to shell out for HBO when there are fifty million other channels. And I agree that "30 Rock, Friday Night Lights and now Andy Barker, P.I. are all so engrossing and so creatively untrammeled that it’s almost suspicious. Have the rules of network TV changed? Does no one need to make money anymore?" I'd say that this is a (grand) trend all around the place, probably provoked by cable's ability to fling many rules to the wind, but I'm not an expert. I'd also say that these shows all have an edge of self-congratulatoriness that's often waivers on an thin sharp edge between hilarious and goose-bumpy-cringe-making. May they never fall off.

And good as it is, my problem with Barker is that the story itself wasn't very interesting or suspenseful partly because everyone was busy being wry and clever. It doesn't work if the characters in funny drama (no, that's not an oxymoron) show that they know they're funny. And I had no similar problems with Raines partly because the acting was better and partly because the story was more interesting. I liked Jeff Goldblum's character, too. And although Stanley had more guard in her enthusiasm for the show than I did, we are in agreement about Goldblum that "he somehow manages to make his way through this muddle of a debut with considerable grace and skill. He has always been a natural in roles that call for glibness and slithery sarcasm, but he is also remarkably moving in those moments when he drops the tough facade...." I recommend both shows and not just as background to the ironing.

Labels: reflections, tv

John Pohhoretz's column on Fred Thompson is fun and cogent. Far-fetched though his candidacy sounds at first, I wouldn't be surprised if he runs. We'd all have to re-tune our televisions' and radios' bass registers if it ended up being Obama vs. Thompson, though!

Labels: politics

The other evening I heard a reporter mention that She Who Would Be President has revived her vocal opposition to the vast right-wing conspiracy. I was in my car, driving to dinner, so I asked my companion how it's a secret since since it's pretty much a given that right-wingers are going to work hard to keep her from winning. (My friend just looked at me, big help that she is.) Then it occurred to me to ask if she thought there's also a vast left-wing conspiracy and if it was responsible for stirring up all the feeling against GWB as a way to make up for being fairly ineffective when GWB won the election and all. I asked if she knew where each side's conspirators hold meetings and what the passwords are or the rules of membership. (Again my friend just looked at me. Again not a word to help clear up my confusion. Some friend.) But now, today, Dadvocate has answered my questions about this. He doesn't tell us what the secret handshake is but he does provide those precious words that get you into the inner sanctum of the VRWC. Fantastic! What a guy.

If someone says, "The whip-or-will only sings at night," you should respond, "Yes, but the mockingbird is the state bird of more states than any other."

Then they will say, "Five states border the Gulf of Mexico" to which you reply, "Eight states border Tennessee."

Finally, they'll say, "Al Gore sucks" to which you should reply, "And his house is too big".

At that, you will be given the double secret email address and phone number to Join the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

I'm so happy. Now to get the phrases for the VLWC so I can infiltrate get insider info about both sides.

Labels: fun, politics

1. Began at Mama Z which I found while trolling for answers to my blogging problems. (By the way, since her basic template is minima, that eliminates one of my theories about the problems I was having.) Anyway, Mama Z's is a nice spot. She is drily wry and wrily dry, commenting on things both domestic and personal. The long meme on the 20th was very entertaining and will almost certainly inspire a similar one from me one of these days. (By the way, just a thought: does “meme” come from “me me”?)

2. Next on to Teb’s Troops which wasn’t what I expected at all. It’s not about the National Guard or the Marines or Iraq, despite the name and the cami background. It’s about a brave and lovely woman whose friends rallied around with money and emotional support when she was terminally ill. There are business and personal backers galore, and it’s quite an inspiration to realize that so many so enthusiastically will come to the aid of someone in need. There’s also a page of useful links, including Outrun the Sun, which is a cleverly titled race to raise funds for melanoma research and prevention.

3. Back to Google Groups for a hoppable link, and on to Me, My Life, My Garden, chosen because I like the name so much. Turns out to be written by a Brit which is a lovely surprise and a passionate flower lover which is not. By the way, the page is extremely pink, so be forewarned. And it's got lots and lots and lots of moveable parts which is cute but a bit hard to read around, although I do like the swinging pot of flowers and the flying crane. It's kind of a personal blog so you feel like you're dropping in on a neighbor and getting cool advice on plants and vegetables and fruits. The seedling photos are really helpful. Definitely a good spot for how things look and how to do things.

4. On to one of MMLMG's links, A Roker Artist. An unusual blog in that it's all about drawings, mostly in black & white, and about color studies. Some of the drawings are really nice. She likes to do quick studies and we're the beneficiaries. I'm curious to know what she does for work, given the strength of her hand. This is a nice place to spend some time looking quietly and reading her comments about color and her reactions to various mediums and hues. I want to go to the beach with the chairs and bathers, too.

5. Allotment Lady's name's meaning eludes me but the blog is really gorgeous. This is another Brit (!) and she's a photographer, part of the photo-a-day semi-movement that I'm seeing all over the place recently. I thought I recognized some of the buildings and, sure enough, it's Norwich which is where Ian McShane's fantastic show, Lovejoy. The photos take me back and I just want to go buy my plane ticket now. A blog to check daily, apparently.

Labels: blogs (others'), reflections

Just as a point of interest, the wildly touted Dial Idol was miles off in their predictions this week. I realize there's a lot of balderdash in the whole thing, and the producers probably really do tweak things their own way, but every other ranker came closer than they did.

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

OK, it's one thing to be bored to death, another to be screeched out of my own living room. How in heaven's name are these the 12 best singers the producers could find all across America in all those bazillion auditions?! Were they actually trying to find bad singers? Some of the boys move so badly and sing even worse that it's almost impossible to believe they "made it to Hollywood" not to mention to the top 12. Last night was Diana Ross night and if she hasn't become her own caricature anyway, the way these people sang her songs pretty much did the nail-in-the-coffin thing. With the exception of Jordin who sang like a real singer with high and low registers and everything. Meanwhile, despite the hype for them, I find Melinda and Lakisha awfully tepid ever since the first week. I know it's a show that has to draw itself out until May, but Simon keeps saying it's a singing competition. Oh yeah?? And p.s., what's going on between Ryan and Simon? They're putative friends but boy their on-air relationship sure doesn't seem like it. Anyway, tonight we find out which person got voted off last night. Hmm, how to pick? (Update Wed. p.m.: Diana Ross descended to center stage in a just slightly wildly over the top red flowy dress and wrap, weaving and almost stumbling as if wearing too high heels or under something's influence (possible?) and sang annoyingly it seemed to me, either proving that the show is mic'ed badly or that something was amiss. Ross aside and as predicted by Whine & Cheese, Brandon went home, a valid choice although he was certainly not the worst, but then that's not the point of course.)

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

In the interests of psychological and emotional balance I've begun yet another page (a/k/a blog, at least in the realm of blogger.com). Where 13up's mission is to make note of good things every day, 13down's raison d'être is to acknowledge annoying things that happen, things that cause minor and sometimes large amounts of blood to boil. All based on the idea that in a perfectly mentally healthy world we pay homage to good & bad, happy & sad, neat & messy, order & disorder. . . . Think chaos theory.

Labels: blogs (mine), reflections

Just took this test and totally aced it. Yeeha! There are some cute tricky questions along with real ones, so it's fun. Nice for one's ego despite quirky standards. Here's a gimme because it's dumb - they included Pluto as a planet (tsk tsk) and they want you to be geekily serious for a couple of the funny answers. However, it is fun. (h/t Unrepentant Individual via Bildungsroman of JMPP via Dustbury)

Labels: blogs (others'), fun

Today isn't quite the Ides, but 13s have their own special lore and even a word of their own (see title). Today is the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard in 1911 and William Casey in 1913, and Terence Tao, an expert on prime numbers, is profiled in today's NYT. Hmm. Scientology . . . the CIA . . . 11 and 13 on a 13. I bet we could make something of this if we tried just a little.

Labels: anniversaries, juxtapositions

One of my brothers is getting married this spring. One happy result that I'm very much looking forward to is becoming and gaining a sister-in-law. One distressful effect is that I need three nice outfits for the various get-togethers. Since I'm neither size 2 nor young and sylph-like, and I don't like 'ordinary' clothes, buying them is unpleasant under the best of circumstances and torture when it matters. If anyone has unusual stores to recommend, especially online, I would be eternally grateful.

The other stressful thing that I'm anxious about is their gift. Since they're both successful adults and have pretty much everything they want, and since I really really want it to be special and really really appreciated, I'm at a loss to know what to make. Big, small, elegant, casual, comfy, fancy, colorful, sophisticated, personal, . . . the choices are too many and overwhelming. I knit and crochet and therefore want to make them something special, probably for their house. Hey, if I carry on long enough, it'll be too late for me to make anything and I'll have to just go throw money at something instead. Dumb, knowing how this could play out and still freaking out over it.

Labels: about me, family, knitting, reflections, whining

What with the non-stop wildfire coverage yesterday, I was worried about one of our blogging friends - she lives in Orange County as we know from her fabulous photos and tales of Disneyland. They're okay, thank goodness.

Labels: blogs (others'), headlines

While exploring blogs over the weekend, I happened upon An Attitude of Gratitude. It's a daily list of things for which its author is grateful: mundane things, funny things, little things, big things. It's a portrait of her, of course, which makes it interesting on one level, and it's a way for her to express her awareness of good things in her life. We often overlook and/or take those things for granted, unfortunately. It also is right up my personal alley. When my children were little, I made a point of including two things in our bedtime routine - the names of everyone we wanted especially to remember that day and at least one good thing that had happened that day. So I decided to start my own positive posts blog. I'm calling it 13up because I was born on a 13th and because this is about looking up in all senses of the word. I know I'll enjoy observing and recording things there and I hope you'll enjoy reading them and perhaps adding your own.

Labels: blogs (mine), blogs (others')

After a nice note from the self-described "ne'er do well" proprietor of Thunder Pig, I revisited with complete success after my early inability to get in. Its banner greets you with a gorgeous panorama and it's both visually and navigationally comfy. Plus, there's bunches of interesting comments and commentary. You gotta love the internet, don't you? Seriously. I mean, you can spend lots of time with people in Oklahoma, France, California, North Dakota, Florida - to name some of my favorites - and now, South Carolina, all just by clicking a little plastic device. Anyway, do visit Thunder Pig.

Labels: blogs (others'), france

I dutifully went to adjust my computer clock this morning when what to my wondering eyes should appear but the correct one-hour-forward time. Once again hell didn't break lose nor armageddon descend (remember Y2k?). So there. Worryworts and alarmists must be upset.

Labels: modern culture, weather

It's insane that it should be necessary, but since more than one baby is kidnapped from a hospital each year, why not have something like the paper wire-coded slip they use so people can't walk out with unpaid-for books, on hospital bracelets? Can't be all that expensive since all they do is set off an alarm. And to foil people with scissors from just cutting them off, they could be constructed of a harder plastic and require a device to remove them like clothing-tags.

Labels: headlines, reflections

Can you say disingenuous, self-serving, dishonest, hypocritical and other words like those?

Who said “"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein…the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"?

Who said “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Who said “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction"?

Who said "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"?

Who "flies around the globe in private jets spewing greenhouse gas-producing exhaust and lives in multiple energy-gobbling mansions, lectures others to use florescent light bulbs and drive electric cars and is hailed for his good works on behalf of the environment."?

Who "lives in a 28,000 square foot home, and owns a beach house on a gated island off the coast of North Carolina, lectures his fellow citizens that 'Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs'"?

Who "admitted to lying under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit, is held up as a champion for women’s rights [and] has been accused not only of unwanted groping, but of rape, and who tried to portray the intern with whom he had an ongoing sexual relationship as a lying stalker until DNA evidence surfaced, is adored by liberal feminists"?

For answers to the above questions and more wry comments, read this article.

Labels: politics, reflections, writing

It's unnecessary to add my voice to those pointing out how ridiculous it is that John Edwards is refusing to take part in the debate to be hosted by Fox News. Nevertheless, I must. Just in case anyone is counting or anything, you know. And I must say I have utter faith that the public (those people who might, uh, vote - which is what this is all in aid of, right?) can decide for themselves (ourselves) whether journalists are fair or not, or whatever it is he's really afraid of. Edwards' position is also odd considering that Fox News has ratings that make the other networks green and you'd think he'd want more rather than fewer people to hear him, wouldn't you? Plus, it's not as if a president gets to pick who he'll talk to, or would he withhold press credentials from outlets he doesn't like? (That would be very free speech of him.) So, at press conferences, will he just not answer Fox reporters' questions? I'd think even the other reporters would want to know since he might put them on his don't-talk list. The whole thing just reduces his position lower than its already not very high point.

Labels: 2008 election, politics, reflections

I'm finding it hard to be interested in American Idol so far because (a) the girls are so astronomically better singers than the boys and (b) two or three of the girls are so totally better than the rest of the girls. I just have to bide my time until it to the end and I'm not sure if that will even matter, because some have careers waiting and contracts ready for signatures, I'm sure. I wouldn't have believed that it's more interesting if everyone is mediocre or at least not outstanding, until I saw it myself.

Labels: a.i., a.i.6

I was sad to learn that I missed World Book Day on March 1st (the 10th WBD, as it happens), but since it's only a few days since then - less than a fortnight as they'd say in some of my favorite books - I'm mentioning it now (with thanks to Stephen Lang). It's an occasion for celebrating, sharing (lists of books and, of course, books), and giving books. The British Library has an Adopt a Book plan which they call "a novel present idea" and I figure serious praise is due a title fashioned with two puns in four words! World Book Day seems a really big deal in the U.K. what with loads of inexpensive book tokens that purchase six- and ten-packs of ten books for pre- and secondary schoolchildren. There's also a survey to learn people's top ten books they can't live without. The #1 choice was Pride and Prejudice, followed by Lord of the Rings, Jane Eyre, all Harry Potter books, To Kill a Mockingbird, the Bible, Wuthering Heights, 1984, His Dark Materials and Great Expectations. Good books, all, though I'm a bit surprised there aren't more outrageous choices considering kids were involved. There's also a game matching public figures and books, and an e-cards page. All very cool. I will be aware and prepared next year. In the meantime, I'll just sacrifice myself this weekend and read a book in commemoration.

Labels: anniversaries, books

Apparently March 9th is an unusual day. With its confluence of stars and other things it is the birth date of moody, adventurous and creative non-conformists: the wild chessman Bobby Fischer, the extravagant astronaut Yuri Gagarin, the extraordinary storyteller Mickey Spillane and the painter/writer and personna Vita Sackville-West, as well as map-maker Vespucci, composers Mussorgsky 250 years ago and Samuel Barber 100 years ago (both reviled for their modernism), designer André Courreges who invented the mini-skirt, singer Keely Smith who was like no one before or since, and the one and only Barbie doll.

Labels: anniversaries, juxtapositions

John Inman, best known for his role in the 1970s sitcom Are You Being Served?, has died in hospital aged 71. The actor, famous for his catchphrase "I'm free!", died in St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, this morning after being ill for some time.

His manager Phil Dale said: "John, through his character Mr Humphries of Are You Being Served? was known and loved throughout the world. "He was one of the best and finest pantomime dames working to capacity audiences throughout Britain. "John was known for his comedy plays and farces which were enjoyed from London's West End throughout the country and as far as Australia, Canada and the USA."

Inman's long-term partner, Ron Lynch, is said to be "devastated" at his death. The actor suffered from hepatitis A and had been taken into hospital for tests after problems with his liver.

Former EastEnders actress Wendy Richard paid tribute to her Are You Being Served? co-star, saying: "John was one of the wittiest and most inventive actors I've ever worked with."

Actress Rula Lenska, who was a friend of Mr Inman for more than 25 years and worked with him in pantomime, told BBC Breakfast: "I'm really terribly sad. I know that he had been very ill. "My abiding memory of John is of joy and warmth. He was just a delight. I'm very proud to have known him, extremely proud to have worked with him, and very sad to lose him."

Fellow pantomime dame Danny La Rue, who had been friends with Inman for 40 years, said the actor was "fantastic and inventive" and had a "magic touch". "He is utterly irreplaceable. The world has lost a star and I have lost a dear friend," he said.

At its height, Are You Being Served? had an audience of 22 million, but its popularity - and the strength of Inman's performance - meant he became typecast as a "camp" actor. Nicholas Smith, who played store manager Mr Rumbold in the sitcom, said that Inman was actually much quieter, wittier and more reserved than his character. . . .

Above - from today's London Telegraph - h/t Incurable Insomniac. This - from me: Thank goodness for film and videotape!

Labels: farewells, people

1. Began at Regular Life, introduced with Emerson's statement that "Life consists of what a man is thinking of all day," a lovely conceit for the author's reflections. The steadily staring owl and the adorable boy are alluring, and the various essays are always interesting. There's humor and insight, true feeling and lots of adventures with his family. One feels one is visiting an old dear friend.

2. Jumped to I am a Cheeseburger because it reminded me of the magnificent young adult book, I Am the Cheese (have you read it?). This blog is written by a self-described "verbose and profane idiot living in Canada, spinning yarns and peeing time" which sounds pretty self-serving to me (heh). Apparently he writes stories and pulp scifi novels about robots and spaceships, for a living, one presumes, in addition to those that are spun on the site. Quite entertaining and worth the visit.

3. To Poppy Cedes which is written by a techie woman who is passionate about cats and cheese, so she's clearly on the top of my personal list. I presume she knows - owns, no doubt - the first Wallace and Grommit movie wherein they take a "cheese vacation" to the moon? Since she likes Britcoms, I wonder if she realizes that there are actually brochures and planned cheese holidays in the U.K., something that delights me, I must say, even if they don't go to the moon. Yet. Her posts are amusing and quirky and her reading ranges from Camus to Blume, and Groundhog Day and The Office are in her list of favorite movies, so she is someone I would probably like even though she liked The Da Vinci Code.

4. Next to Grenouille Plus because I love the French word for frog (almost as much as the word for umbrella - parapluie). There's not a single word spoken here as it's all images. This blogger has other sites, too: Des Chapeaux (replete with hat images), Le Ramoneur de Bourg (chimney sweeper images), and Agence eureka (images of all kinds of things, perhaps surprising juxtapositions). They're idiosyncratic and quite appealing.

5. On to The Crime in Your Coffee, unable to resist the title and curious to know if it refers to evil deeds or caffeine. Which I still don't know because, problem is, this one's in German and for me that's prohibitive. So back to Poppy Cedes and on to Potatoes in the Mist which is a nifty surprise. Today's cupcake and brownie pictures are so clear that I feel as if I had too much dessert. Bearette has begun knitting (congratulations!!) and her seed stitches look quite nice. This is one of those personal blogs and it's quite enjoyable. I look forward to more, I must say.

Which is all there is for now. Have a hoppy week!! :)

Labels: blogs (others'), france, reflections

A remote control can be the source of many good things, from unexpectedly exciting movies to fondly remembered shows, to completely new discoveries. Tonight I was looking for something interesting to watch while I ate my salad. I chanced upon an interview with a friendly looking and sounding woman who founded an organization called Semper Fi Parents of the Hudson Valley after her son who had gone to Iraq with the Marines was wounded and did not come home. She was devastated and did not know where to turn for information or help. An HBO director contacted her because he had film footage of her son after he'd been shot, and therefore had precious information for her of the last hours of her son's life. She agreed to participate in the film and found herself embarked on a mission. She sought information from the Marines and though they meant well their mechanisms assisted spouses, not parents. One thing led to another and she began to fashion what became therapy for her and seems as a gift from her son and to others. She says that SFPHV has five basic components to its mission:

--To be an emotional outlet for Marine/military parents of those in boot-camps, active, or reserve status and for those who have been recently discharged.

--To network with area businesses and to hold fundraisers to raise supportive funds to help offset the cost of the many boxes that are sent to our troops.

To hold educational workshops for parents and troops.

--To steer parents in the correct direction for additional emotional / educational assistance which cannot be handled from within the local support group.

--To disburse three scholarships per year to those who have been discharged from active service or who continue in the reserves, and have opted to further their education in the college system.

They've sent over 1500 care packages, 150 holiday stockings to soldiers in their three "adopted" platoons, held annual golf outings to raise funds and shore up their own friendships (the next one is in two months), gathered funds and food and items for deployed and wounded soldiers and provided immeasurable emotional and moral support for families. One of the website's vital parts is a Parents page which provides information that was previously not gathered in one place at all, for before and after boot camp (reading, resources, etc.) as well as generally. Necessity is often the proverbial mother of invention but rarely so helpfully and encouragingly. (I'm so glad I have a remote control!)

Labels: people, reflections

There've been two earthquakes in Indonesia, headlined on bbc and foxnews websites. Since "only" about 70 are dead, that must explain why it's not mentioned at all at cnn.com which is featuring a nasty little story about a pilot who crashed himself and his daughter into his mother-in-law's house, nor at nyt.com which leads with stories about Bush disagreements and the Libby trial and tucks the earthquake story halfway down the page. Sometimes it's more evident than usual how carefully pre-selected the news is according to each outlet. Makes you wonder how close is the connect between what we hear happens and what really happens.

Labels: headlines, history

I just realized that it's the [much too large number] anniversary of my engagement to the man I married. I remember how utterly thrilled I was although it was considerably tempered by my mother's warning that she'd take his side if we ever argued. On the other hand, I can't quite remember why it felt so incredibly important to get married while I was in college rather than waiting a year. Or why my father who controlled what I wore and how short I cut my fair allowed it. Which leads me to reflect briefly on how momentous some events feel at the time and are, in the sense that much happens because of them. Life is nothing if not interesting.

Labels: about me

I suspect no one who has been in a family for more than five minutes would say it's easy. In the very best of circumstances with two parents who like each other and a modicum of respect and kindness for each other, there are always moments when anger or resentment or hurt feelings loom between and/or among parents and/or children. And anyway, who among us luxuriates in the best of circumstances? Certainly not the fifty percent or whatever it is who are on their second or third marriages. Thus it's a bit surprising the press is all a-twitter at Rudy Guiliani's son's acknowledgment that there has been a rift between him and his father. Duh. Remember Guiliani's mayoral election when chubby young Andrew fooled around and grabbed the microphone and generally disrupted the show? Did mama Donna intervene to allow Rudy his moment? Course not. She'd already begun her pursed-lips journey of irritation and self-righteousness, during which she almost cheerily made not even a tiny effort to keep their problems private. Always understandable but rarely pleasant or mature or wise. Andrew and Caroline didn't have a chance of fewer than at least a few years of being nasty. It's kind of a familiar rite of passage from which only a very rare few escape. So I'm guessing that other people will have the same reaction I have - it's a little sad but probably irrelevant.

Labels: people, reflections

Apparently the ever-adaptable Hillary chose to use a southern drawl in an appearance at a southern church yesterday. It isn't exactly news that she engages in all the pandering she can find to do, is it? Course, one of the commenters at Breitbart mentioned that "she's fake but they are eating it up . . . [the] maroons!" so I guess one must wonder about many things these days including being alone on an atoll or deep red in color.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Thanks to alert, cunning and sly rare reader CGHill, one learns and must include amendments (emendments, actually) to Nice fact on former Vice Pesident Charles Gates Dawes and from his U.S. Congress entry:

1) Dawes was actually Calvin Coolidge's Vice President. (Coolidge had replaced Warren G. Harding, who died in office in 1923; Coolidge ran for reelection in 1924 and picked Dawes as his running mate.) The two, however, did not get along.

2) Dawes wrote the melody of the song in 1912; he titled it simply "Melody in A Major." Carl Sigman put words to it in 1951 (the same year Dawes died). Tommy Edwards, who got the biggest hit out of it, cut it twice: a fairly conventional pop record in '51, a R&B smash in '58.

2a) Just for the heck of it: Dawes shared the 1925 Nobel Peace Prize for his plan for World War I reparations from Germany, a plan which proved to be seriously buggy.

Going to prove that Wikipedia is, as people often say, not reliable, and that Dawes was even more interesting than I thought. Several on-line sources have my father being Arturo Toscanini's son, for logical though mistaken reasons, so you'd think I'd know better than to take anything there at face value.

And two additional lovely facts: (1) that he was inaugurated 82 years ago today, and (2) that he left office four years later, 78 years ago today. Fabulous.

Labels: history, people

I'm encumbered blessed with a skepticism filter so I rarely take anything at face value any more, especially anything very wonderful or very gloomy. Nevertheless, I am awe-struck by his-holiness-Gore and his family's energy usage. It's not just the quantity, which admittedly is staggering and blithely hypocritical, but the twist: a cleverly named manipulation called "carbon offsetting". If you don't know about this, read Mark Steyn's article - which pretty much requires wide-spread distribution anyway, partly because of his usual dry humor but mostly because it explains offsetting so well. It's essentially a way for people to trade high usage for low, so if you need four zillion and I only need a billion, I can give you some of my 'credits'. If it were only so simple, for one thing, and if it wasn't so callous, for another. And guess what? there's a corporation that engages in international offsetting and you-know-who is a major stockholder and salesman. I thought we were done with self-important people taking advantage of and patronizing people under the guise of do-goodism, but apparently not. I guess if you slather on do-goodism thickly enough, some people still think the emperor is wearing clothes. The incredible thing is that the idea of carbon offsets hasn't been laughed or booed out of the metaphorical room, along with the emperor.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Since I've been whining and complaining recently in this spot, I'll throw in a little more by way of explaining why I'm watching a movie at 2 a.m.

First, I'd found this amusing template - usable only in Classic as many are - and was fussing with it early this morning when The Great Hand of Headaches swooped down and thwacked me hard upside my - well, yes, upside my head. Blessedly, I've had only one previously that I know was a migraine, about fifteen years ago, and this was another. Boyoboy. They are, without equivocation, nasty business. You can't get up without feeling woozy and you can't lie down without your head hurting. You can't mindlessly watch tv or stare out the window because a glimmer of light is physically painful. You can't read because you can't see and, anyway, getting any light to read would hurt. You're hungry and sense that eating would help but you don't want to eat lest you get sick. You feel as if too much caffeine may be responsible yet you know that caffeine is reputed to help. You desperately need aspirin or advil but you can't get up to get it without . . . back to #1. If I knew what I did to make this happen, I promise I would never do it again. I used to think it was about drinking coffee on the way to work but I don't do that any more.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Somewhere around 6:30 or 7:00 this evening, the rotten gloomy cloud on my head lifted and I joyously downed a bowl of soup, some French bread, some yogurt and a salad. Food can be a glorious thing when you felt as if you'd never live to enjoy anything again. (Who's melodramatic? Who?! I'd sure better never get . . . well, never mind, I won't temp the poltergeist-ish gods who amuse themselves by listening in on such things.) So then, after fiddling with French homework and laundry and a bit of neatening up, a movie turned up that'd slipped past me when it came out. One of those near-nuclear-holocaust movies, this in a submarine, Crimson Tide stars Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington and James Gandolfini. It's produced by Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer, than whom few tell more gripping stories (CSI, Pirates of the Caribbean, Cold Case, Without a Trace, Close to Home, etc. - Bruckheimer and Numbers, Hostage, The Gathering Storm, Top Gun, etc. - Scott). It's not especially original nor as deliciously tense as some mutiny stories, but the acting and photography are marvelous. What pushes it over the top is the Hans Zimmer soundtrack, complete with men's chorus at just those moments when you are holding your breath anyway (and nice touch that an important character is named "Mr Zimmer"). If you enjoy a fairly old-fashioned war movie with Oscar-worthy cinematography and sound, be sure you catch it.

Labels: about me, france, movies

How cool is it that Teddy Roosevelt's vice president (yes, THAT Teddy Roosevelt), Charles Dawes, wrote the lyrics to It's All in the Game, a #1 song that's been covered and sung by artists as diverse as Van Morrison, Cliff Richards, Andy Williams, Barry Manilow, and many others. (HT Dadvocate)

Labels: music, people

For two entire days, I've been unable to access this blog - and presumably any rare readers were also unable to. I've had a ubiquitous "bx-" error message whenever I tried to open or view or save or . . . anything. Words cannot adequately express how frustrating it's been. I sent in a report at Blogger itself and posted at Google's Blogger Help Group. As did several other people saying similar things, although we each had different suffixes. It's astonishing how hoity-toity some responders are, too. Why offer help if it annoys you, one cannot help wondering!? Anyway, after reading and posting and reading and posting, I learned a couple of things. One is that the "Blogger help group" is not run nor staffed nor necessarily even looked at by anyone from Blogger. Several of us have reported the problem via blogger, internally, as well as on BHG but there has been no response. This happened about two years ago, too, when everything disappeared. I hadn't done much yet, however, so I just started over. Now there are nearly a thousand posts and it would be sad to lose them all. Sure, I have a RSS back-up but it wouldn't be practical to repost each one. I guess one must conclude that Blogger is uninterested in assisting people when semi catastrophes strike.

Bottom line is two-fold. I searched high and wide and found this awesome template that works very nicely but not (at least not yet) with the new layouts, so I'm in so-called classic template mode. Over the weekend I'll see if I can get tweak it enough to widget-ize. Fold two is that I will now investigate other hosts and see what's out there that I might be comfortable with. One person at Blogger Help told me to bite the bullet and look at blogging like shopping at K-Mart insofar as one is one's own customer service. First of all, K-Mart and WalMart and Target stores cater to masses of people but *do* care about their customers and have always been superbly helpful whenever I've been there. And I really do appreciate the service that Blogger offers, enormously, but customer-service callousness is unacceptable, especially on this scale. If you don't want to put energy and money into supporting something, why do it at all?

Labels: blogs (mine), web design