Posting will be slow until Monday, unless I find a free or inexpensive business center in the hotel in DC. Today is allocated for preparing and I leave early tomorrow morning for four days of wedding festivities for one of my brothers. There are no fewer than two wedding-related events Thursday, Friday and Saturday; Sunday there's one. And, no, this is not an Indian ceremony. Good news is that I get to spend some time with both of t2cgitw; bad news is that I'm already worn out from the flooding and aftermath (which can't be completely cleaned up until I'm back in town after the wedding), and all this partying is not my usual homebody style so I'm tired in anticipation. Plus, four days with one's family is definitely courting trouble (plus all those people in the family I've never met). The really cool thing from my point of view is that I'm not losing a brother, I'm gaining a sister-in-law!! And with any luck, my bad attitude/expectations means that everything will go splendidly! Have a great rest of the week, if I don't "talk" to you until then!!

Labels: about me, people

Sheryl Crow now says the toilet paper suggestion was a joke. No way, josé. It was really badly received by all kinds of people and brought all kinds of attention to all the 'footprints' and excesses in which she engages (see tmz.com) so she's trying to slip weasel out of it by saying it was a joke. It's also a joke that Al Gore uses tons more energy than anyone else and that Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks that's okay because people who bring 'the message' have different needs and deserve special treatment. You're laughing, right? Me, too.

Labels: headlines

Rumor has it that Rosie will announce today that she's leaving The View. Update: she did announce it. She also stated, rather quietly, I thought, that it was because the brass wanted her to sign for three years and she only wanted one. Between the absurdity of that idea and the suddenly quiet tone of her voice, I'm willing to bet that was the story they agreed she would tell and then everyone would look peachy. I'm also willing to bet that the real story is more about her going right over the edge, not just up to it, when she grabbed her crotch and said 'eat me' while talking to young women who were receiving awards. I'm a huge fan of free speech and free market but if Imus can't be extremely rude and racist then why can she? In a less semi-nanny world, they'd both be left out there and we could see if viewers and listeners really would avoid them, which is an approach I'd prefer, but they didn't ask me (as usual).

Labels: people, tv

I'm not well-versed enough to have an opinion on his points, but I am impressed at Fred Thompson's writing this long and detailed article on Federalism. I like his awareness and attention to the intellectual side of political issues as well as his clarity.

Labels: 2008 election, politics

Blog friend Barb the evil genius wrote yesterday about Sheryl Crow's proposal to have us all be restricted to one piece of toilet paper per, uh, sitting. And that we should stop using paper napkins altogether. This brings up some unpleasant images and also raises the issue of laundry, as Barb points out. There'd be lots more laundry especially in households with children. And more laundry would mean more water. Water is one of the commodities in dire straits (last week's flooding to the contrary notwithstanding) so that's not a good idea. And more laundry would also mean more dirty water and soap out in the world which is definitely not a good idea either. And by the way what do suppose she thinks women should use at the 'time of the month'? Rags, like the 'good old days'? Ick. Think of the how smelly and unhygienic that would be, not to mention several steps backwards as far as participating in business, politics, sports, etc. Hmm, perhaps - just perhaps - she hasn't thought this all through....

Labels: headlines, reflections

Rich Lowry's article, Madness at Virginia Tech, is the most succinct and accurate reflection on Cho that I've read. Part of what struck me is his point that because the system neglected to follow through on Cho's court-ordered treatment, it failed those who were killed (obviously) but also the isolated, lonely, angry man himself. Hard though it is to think empathetically about him, it is worth noting that the laxness and/or unwillingness of the professionals and administrators to do anything about what they knew and saw meant that Cho was deprived of a chance to become well (not to mention, of course, that ignoring his festering madness basically allowed it to grow to the flashpoint). Unfortunately, it is also true that if he had written racial slurs instead of violent imagery, he would have been hauled right out of there. What a strange moment in time this is. Anyway, read Lowry's piece.

Labels: headlines, reflections

You know that quip about how you always find something in the last place you look? Today I had to find a piece of paper I knew had come in the mail about two weeks ago but I had put somewhere "clever" (heaven help us when we put something there). I couldn't find it anywhere. It had disappeared off the face of the earth. So I started rooting through every nook, cranny, bag, pile of paper, etc. in the house. And it dutifully turned up in the last place I looked but the amusing part is that it was literally at the bottom of the very last nook, cranny, bag and pile of paper in the house. The gods get their jollies in hilarious ways.

Labels: about me

The weather is gorgeous today. Bright sun, not too hot and not too cold. It's even supposed to be like this for several days. The water in my basement is nearly pumped out, too. Unless I can figure out some way to tilt the house toward the pump, I guess I'll need a shop/water vac to get the last of it. Goodie gumdrops. Next up: getting the hot water heater back on (hopefully there was no damage to it), then emptying all the icky boxes and stuff, then cleaning it and/or waterproofing it (which is when I'll need to find some rich relatives). Brother.

Labels: about me

Turn up the volume on your computer, then click here for a few minutes of calm quiet beauty. As Don Surber who posted this today said, it is beautiful.

Labels: beauty, blogs (others')

I used my cellphone more today than in the last two years put together. I spent most of the day making and receiving calls, trying to work out getting four inches of water out of my basement from the recent aprés-moi-le-deluge. Calls with the insurance company, two cleaning companies, my insurance agent (fantastic woman), two plumbers after the cleaning companies charged so much, the insurance adjuster (who turned out to be an awesome, helpful man), a neighbor, a friend, on and on. And this is for a situation that isn't anywhere near as bad as some, at least at first glance. Apparently some elderly people along a nearby creek got so much water into their homes that the homes actually folded in on themselves. And since our whole big area is a flood plain, no one can get flood insurance so everyone has to pay outright. Which means that once our odd governor decides to declare us a disaster area, FEMA will be involved which is good in that some money will be recovered but a pain because of the incredible hassle and frustration. Several businesses are shutting down because equipment and inventory was wrecked and buildings all but destroyed. And boyoboy are the people who do the clean-up charging high rates (gouging?). As my adjuster said, "it's all about necessity and marketplace; it's very wrong but that's what happens." Anyway, enough whining for today. Thanks for listening.

Labels: about me

It's easy to hold onto nasty things that happened to us and only reluctantly (if at all) relinquish them as injuries we've suffered and/or as weapons against those who did them. I hope Ireland Baldwin has someone to help her understand and process the extraordinary and difficult things her parents do to and say about each other. The latest of their escapades is Alec's incredibly angry tirade left on her answering machine. And as if that wasn't enough, everyone can hear it, her school friends included, thanks to her mother releasing it to the press. Whew. I hope someday she'll understand that feelings can overwhelm you, even if you're not a toddler, and that it's easy to burst out very inappropriately. Undoubtedly her father really wanted to talk with her and I'm sure he was disappointed and frustrated when he got the machine. There's little as profoundly agitating as wanting to interact with a child who seems influenced against you by the other parent -- you know you shouldn't take it out on the child or even talk about it with the child. You even know it's really your spouse you should talk with but he/she is inaccessible or won't brook any discussion. Ultimately, especially in the complex organism known as a family, the regrettable but true answer is this: sometimes we cannot all get along.

Labels: people, reflections

Via Roger Simon and amid over a hundred comments to a post the other day, a link to this appalling event. Maybe it's good news that the bar is actually much higher than Cho has set it - and therefore that the sickos who want to strive for a record should forget about it.

Labels: blogs (others'), headlines

1. Via John Baker's always thoughtful and thought-provoking place, I found older but no wiser which in turn led me to Tamarika's Mining Nuggets. At first glance it was a bit too self-conscious for my taste - a designation that's odd since blogs are onomatopoeically self-conscious, but I don't know any other way to describe what I mean. However, upon perusal, MN proved to be quite interesting. Especially so was this post from the beginning of April, wherein she mused on the idea of how we often strive so hard to be perfect, or nearly so, that we fail or don't even start. She was told "think mediocrity." It sounds, at first, like a dreadful thing to be told, but long consideration yields a sense of calm and easing. And she is infectiously upbeat and engaging. Anyway, we are who we are, and if we won't be satisfied with anything less than phenomenal success or brilliant insights, we are trapped and frozen.

2. Along those lines, My Mom's Blog is written by an 81-year-old who says she is one of the internet's oldest bloggers, "thoroughly modern Millie", by name and tag. With "Garfield" as her last name, it must have been a difficult decision between using the feisty cat or the loverly Brit as a moniker. Either way, she apparently began blogging at 77 and has been going strong ever since. (I was sure my mother would enjoy the internet and blogging, but somewhere around 83 she decided it was all too difficult and confusing, which saddened me.) Anyway, MM'sB is personal, idiosyncratic, multi-subject, chatty, sometimes serious, and mostly loads of fun. Her soup recipe sounds delicious and if this is how you can look at 81, I'm not going to worry about it any more!

3. 007 in Africa may have to be renamed soon. She's a peripatetic blogger who doesn't seem to post enough for devotees (and soon-to-be devotees) but her antics are very interesting. She worked in the Congo and all the rest of her family were spread out too (read the details here) but now she's back in the U.S., in DC to be exact. How about "007 in DC"? Anyway, she's quirky and observant and I want to know more.

4. Because we're here, boy, no one else; just us is by Carl, the driver. He apparently flies people all around central Africa, mostly people who are doing good things for other people - which is presumably how 007 came across him. Wonderful stories, scary stories, great photos . . . .

5. Brian J. Becker is a lush looking blog written by the manager of a "faith-based microfinance institution that gives small loans to help grow tiny family businesses in an effort to help people ease the burden of poverty and ultimately rise out of it permanently." He lives in the Congo and works for HOPE International as a modern-day missionary, not pushing religion, although that's in there too, but economic health. (The U.S. government's OPIC is not unrelated to this sort of outreach, but of course it has the "taint" of government.) How can you resist reading and staying to read more about "empowering women and men in the battle against extreme poverty"?! And the photos . . . . !

This bloghopping is fascinating business.

Labels: blogs (others')

The good news is that the university did take everyone seriously two years ago (teachers Lucinda Roy and Nikki Giovanni, and the two (or more) girls who reported that Cho was stalking them). Cho was detained for evaluation but was assigned to an apparently unobservant psychiatrist named Roy Crouse who concluded that out-patient care was sufficient because Cho's "insight and judgment are normal". Which means what, exactly? That he knew what day of the week it was? That he could name the planets? Anyone who's been anywhere near psychiatry knows that even depressed and very upset people can "present" superbly and seem peachy if they need to. Anyway, even with that evaluation, a judge certified that Cho presented "an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness" (no kidding) and ordered follow-up treatment. But Cho never showed up and in all this time apparently no one bothered to see how his oh-so-normal insight and judgment were doing. Geez louise. Boy, if I were a parent at VT, I'd sure think about channeling my rage into seeing about suing the heck out of Dr. Crouse and trying to get his license revoked. It wouldn't change a thing, of course, but it would be the closest I could come to doing something. What the heck good is it when a system does have safeguards but fails to use them?!

P.S. Did Cho's high school teachers or his family never notice how badly off he was, and did they ever try to intervene? And if they did try, and failed, why wasn't he sent for residential treatment? (I'm sure we'll hear, eventually.) Some people are just evil and seem to appear out of nowhere but Cho's rampage seems to have been preventable, which is crushingly sad.

Labels: headlines, reflections

It's not as if I, or any of us, have all the facts, but here's some of what I think.

After the first incident where Cho killed Emily and Ryan, the police could legitimately have thought Emily's boyfriend was responsible. He was said to own guns and, anyway, the "common wisdom" is that significant others are usually responsible. It's also not unreasonable that they thought the chaos was over. Nor would it have been unreasonable for them not to issue an immediate campus-wide alert since they thought it was over and done with.

It does seems evident, however, that the university failed to exercise responsibility about Cho in the couple of years beforehand. Several adult and thoughtful people had identified him to administration as disturbed and disturbing. These are people who welcome and even champion eccentricity and individuality, but they said that Cho wasn't 'merely' weird. He was actually disturbed and probably dangerous. After all, he had set a fire in a dorm, written extraordinarily violent narratives in at least two plays and several poems, been so odd in one of magnificent poet Nikki Giovanni's classes that over sixty students dropped the class, took photos of girls under the desks, alarmed novelist and teacher Lucinda Roy to such an extent that she met with him individually rather than in a class but then only with verbal safeguards for calling security, been prescribed anti-depressant medication, and more.

A university is, to some extent, in loco parentis and, as such, is enjoined to educate as well as to guard its community. Security personnel should have had him on a "keep your eyes on" list. Loudspeakers should have been available all over the campus for extremely rare moments when instant action is necessary. Surveillance cameras should have been installed at entrances to all buildings, with someone monitoring them at all times, so they could have noticed someone with ammunition strapped to his body entering a building and so they could have put the building and campus on immediate alert and locked the doors.

A university must have rules and requirements. Freedom of expression and even physical freedom must be cherished but so must there must be ways to identify, treat and remove a person who is demonstrably dangerous, as Cho seems to have been. That is not an abnegation of personal freedom because freedom is not the same as license. A university must not be a place in which life and liberty are lost while license masquerades as individuality.

Labels: headlines, reflections

Spiced Sass, another site always worth visiting, wrote about an experiment in observation in which renowned violinist Joshua Bell set up outside a subway and played the violin. The idea was to see whether hasty commuters would notice and stop to listen, or not.

A couple of years ago, as I was going from my train to my office through Grand Central Station, I heard the strains of a violin. I moved to the center of the big hall and there was an artist-shirted young man playing something rousing and fabulous, very energetically. The music was simply extraordinarily. What made the time listening to him even better was that there were at least a hundred people gathered around, all entranced, all delighted. These were commuters and travelers so there were people of every hue and age. It was superb. Many coins and bills were given and much joy was received. So, yes, sometimes some people do stop and listen.

Labels: good ideas, reflections

My blog friend, Barb, commented on my post yesterday where I suggested limiting "tools with which people can express intense anger and misery." She pointed out that kitchen knives are under the gun (heh) in the U.K. and she legitimately questioned how much we can limit tools' availability.

I completely agree that we should not over-react to events like yesterday's. In fact I think the urge to control things is already going a tad nutty. Unfortunately a healthy, engaged, interesting life simply includes occasional risks and dangers. For example, I don't think we should ban peanut butter - we should teach people to be careful. I don't think we should ban bicycles - we should teach riders to wear helmets.

I realize there's lots more to events like this than how they're done and with what. The person or persons are disturbed and angry, probably sick, certainly unstable. Psychological help before the fact would be the best solution, of course. So would an upbringing that resulted in a confident, secure, happy person. But some things are improbable or even impossible, or just too late. The fact of the matter is that many people don't live up to their own idea of ideal (hey, I'd love to be tall thin and blonde) and are, in fact, flawed in any number of ways.

Which brings me back to a more practical point. What I mean by "tools" is things that can do enormous damage very quickly and very easily. Using a knife to kill or injure someone takes a lot of time and effort, whereas using an automatic weapon with dozens of rounds of ammunition to kill or injure whole bunches of people takes very little effort or time. I know I'm treading close to suggesting that we limit our personal "right" to own guns but for the life of me I cannot think of one good reason why any ordinary person needs -- or has a "right" -- to own an automatic weapon. Nor can I understand why gun shows are exempt from background-checking buyers. And I realize that guns don't kill people because it's the people who have the guns who are doing the killing. But if they couldn't use an automatic gun, they would have to turn to more deliberate and difficult methods . . . which might slow them down enough to stop the whole thing. Why must being an American include the fairly frequent and not very remote possibility of being mowed down by lunatics?

Labels: headlines, reflections

I've been listening to various and fairly intelligent reportage about the shootings today in Virginia. The horror and ghastliness of it all is understood by us all, including several people on the train tonight. I find it quite touching that supposedly hardened New Yorkers just quietly reach out to each other at such moments and talk about what's happened, not dwelling on the weaponry or horror, but on the sadness and whatever human dignity can be identified. No one pontificates or champions their "solution". For me, I don't think there is one way -- or maybe even any way -- to end violence in the modern world, I think there does need to be consideration given to reducing the easy availability of tools with which people can express intense anger and misery. Would that any of the candidates for president were people who could galvanize intentionality and kindness in a positive way.

Labels: headlines, people, reflections

Shoot me now. First, blogger went kerfluwe and then I couldn't satisfactorily recover the backup I'd done and then I started getting antsy . . . and this is what happened. Forgive and forget is all I can say. And/or make me stop trying for the perfect mix of sophisticated, easy-to-read, cool, colorful, and generally fantastic template.

Labels: blogs (mine), web design

I don't know much about Jackie Mason except that some people think he's extremely funny and "right-on", that he's very very Jewish, and that he has a really thick accent. A little while ago I was driving home from doing some errands, with the radio on, when Monica Crowley announced that she was about to talk with Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder. Seems they've just published a satirical book called Schmucks! and, aside from plugging their book, Crowley thought she'd ask if any or all of the people involved in the Imus events of the week are schmucks by M&F's definition. Their answers were funny which wasn't too surprising (especially about Madonna and Hillary) but (here's when I got surprised) they were perceptive (meaning that I agreed with what they said (hey, isn't that what "perceptive" usually means?)). They ragged on everyone just right and left almost no one out. They pointed out that the line between "taste" and "tasteless" and, in turn, from "unacceptable", is not easy to identify or define clearly because it depends on the sensitivities of the majority of a society at any moment in time. Specifically, they said that the lacrosse players do deserve an apology (though it's also ridiculous to act as if they're all clean as driven snow); that the overzealous D.A. does deserve to be fired since he lied about, distorted and ignored evidence; and that Imus was horribly tasteless and absolutely deserved to be chastised but that being fired seems draconian and ridiculous; and that the real villains of several pieces are Sharpton and Jackson, the self-appointed self-righteous hypocrital judge and jury responsible for at least one man's death. Amen.

Labels: headlines

Two days late, but better late than never.
1. One of my continuing favorites is Kitty Litter, a dependably funny / sad / perceptive / clever / observant blog. Typical of its character was Tuesday's post about a white cat nicknamed Macavity who takes the Wolverhampton bus at the same time every morning and gets off at the same row of stores (near a fish & chips store!) is typical and absolutely should not be missed.

2. Grumpy Old Bookman is (yet another) terrific blog by a Brit. There really must be something in the water around that isle. Every last one of them can act and write well. What's the deal? My enthusing aside, this is a neat blog that's mainly about books and the book business. For posts you particularly should not miss to get a feel for the blog, read this about the literary life and this about Penguin (best to have an anger management class phone number handy) and this about reading in general, among others. His sidebar is replete with dozens of places I want to check out, including more blogging references than I've seen gathered together before.

3. The Tempest describes itself as "a literary blog for smart readers" which is a bit self-important, but it's a good place to visit. What it really means by "smart" is non-mainstream, so the writers under discussion are somewhat intellectual and academic. But the enthusiasm and excitement is pure blog-ery and for that I am most grateful. There are entries by several different people and as you read the posts, you begin to discern their "takes" on things. Kathy's post on Oprah's naming Corman McCarthy's The Road asks a question I wonder about too; Curley's post on Zbigniew Herbert's The Collected Poems 1956-1998 is tantalizing; and I really liked (read: found myself thinking about) Renaissance's post on Megachurch, Megabusiness: an Impossibly Wide Berth (which isn't what it sounds like, honest). Poetry, commentary, observation, a bit of wit, and loads of opinions...definitely worth repeated visits.

Labels: blogs (others')

I never ever -- well, hardly ever -- link to network news here but I just have to link to this one by Terry Moran of ABC News whose piece today that caught my eye is about how sorry -- well, not -- we should feel for the Duke lacrosse players. I think he hits the nail squarely on the head when he points out that our sympathy for the boys may be "just a bit misplaced." Especially when you consider that (a) they had "collected $800 to purchase the time of two strippers," (b) they'd "specifically requested at least one white stripper," (c) Finnerty had been "charged with assault in Washington, DC, in 2005" and (d) because of the relative wealth of their parents, they "were able to retain a battery of top-flight attorneys, investigators and media strategists." Sometimes adversity makes us better people and these guys seem to have been ideal candidates for needing a few hard knocks.

Labels: blogs (others'), headlines, reflections

My son made a perceptive and interesting point. He's a long-time Howard Stern fan so I was curious about his opinion on the Don Imus fuss. He pointed out that Stern makes tasteless and crass remarks all the time (no kidding) but that he never attacks a group. He makes fun of people -- and the basic nastiness of that is part of why I don't listen to him -- but he doesn't categorize or attack. Good point.

Which still obtains no relief for the people Sharpton tarred and feathered on Tawana Brawley's behalf. Let alone makes him squirm or costs him his job or elicits even a simple apology.

Labels: headlines, people, reflections

A bit more fiddling with the "look" of this. I can't help it. I think it might be a congenital illness. Anyway, I wanted a bit more simplicity. Less is more, right? It's tough to get lots of white space when you also want to include billions of interesting links.

Labels: blogs (mine), web design

Today's bizarre news item is that all charges have been dropped against the Duke lacrosse players. All. The charges. Which is ducky for them and quite possibly even the correct outcome. The accuser is probably mentally unstable, the prosecutor was excessively zealous, and the boys were a really handy stepping stone for his reelection.

Which reminds me of Tawana Brawley. Remember Tawana Brawley? The girl who accused four young men of unspeakable actions against her and turned out to have made up the whole thing because she was scared of her father who was a convicted murderer? And who gathered the likes of Bill Cosby and Al Sharpton to champion her cause and say really nasty things about the boys involved? Except for the very very minor detail that NONE of it ever happened. None. Of it. Not one single solitary piece of it. (At least the Duke guys were in the house!)

And yet, even though Tawana made the whole thing up, four young men had their lives ruined. One lost his job. One lost his career. One lost his career and his fiancée. One lost his life because he was so distraught that anyone even thought he might have done such appalling things that he took his own life. Sharpton and Cosby, among others, did a really good job stirring up community outrage.

So here's my question: where was the outrage, the demands for apologies, the people being fired and losing their jobs, after the Brawley mess? Imus has been pilloried and excoriated for doing nothing very different than what Chris Rock, rap musicians, Opie & Anthony, dozens of comedians and many others do every day, directed at everyone and anyone, and no one's life has changed or been actually hurt because of what he said. Sharpton directed venom and viciousness at specific people and wrenched and destroyed their lives. But he's never said one word of apology or done one thing to make amends. Nor has Cosby. They never splashed themsevles on the front pages of all the newspapers and went on all the cable news shows and begged for everyone's understanding and forgiveness -- as they demanded of Imus. Sharpton never worked like mad to repair the damage he caused to those four young men and to the community in which he injected so much rancor and bitterness -- as he demands of Imus. Please tell me what the difference is?

Labels: headlines, people, reflections

I hadn't really formulated a reaction to all the fuss about what Don Imus said and then I decided to think about it. Okay, he said something that was clearly extremely rude and tasteless. But what exactly is news-worthy about that? Being rude and tasteless is his stock in trade, isn't it?? And are we really supposed to believe that what he said even registered on the Rutgers girls' radar - - - - until the media picked it up and ran with it? The basketball phenoms were justifiably thrilled and proud of themselves so why would some aging hippie's idiotic remarks make any difference? I don't think they did. Hey, if you don't want to listen to someone be rude and tasteless, don't listen to him. If you want him off the air, don't buy his advertisers' wares. And what I really want to know is this: are we going to hear about every rude and tasteless remark made by Opie & Anthony or Howard Stern? No, of course not. Hey, do you think Al Sharpton decided to make a big stink about Imus's remark because his daughter goes to Temple and the game Imus was riffing on was where Rutgers beat Temple??

Labels: headlines, reflections

Many thanks to Laura for pointing out that each of the 50 states sends a specially decorated Easter egg to the White House. I'd never heard of this before. What a wonderful tradition. They're all beautiful but some are simply astonishing like the California, New York and Kansas eggs, right. How do people do all that with an egg?!! What talent and loveliness there is.

Labels: gwb, holidays

My friend concocted a wonderful meal tonight (roast chicken, asparagus, fluffy rice, home-made bread, ending with strawberries and cream) and I contributed white wine and Girl Scout cookies. Everything was cooked just right and tasted scrumptious. After dinner we watched several episodes of one of our favorite BritComs, My Family. What better way to begin the season of renewal than sharing delicious food, good conversation and lots of laughter with best friends.

Labels: about me, friends, gk1, holidays

Jennifer Hudson is not only talented and pleasant, she's also kind and generous, apparently. Hold onto your Easter bonnet, this is just plain nice and doesn't have a nasty side to it. There's almost no publicity about it and nothing twisted to make of it. Go, Jennifer!

Labels: a.i., celebrities, gk1

Spring is here - meteorologically and liturgically. I hope you have a wonderful day on both counts.

Labels: holidays

During a difficult time last fall, I made myself feel better, and possibly helped cause something of a turn-around, by writing about something or someone good on an almost daily basis. Good karma and all that. Once things were better, I forgot to keep it up (hey, someone has to demonstrate the truth of the cliché about good intentions and some silly old road) and now there's a new iteration of the same unsettling situation. I know that part of the problem, unfortunately, is that I want something I can't cause or control by myself, and also that the others involved have feelings and opinions I simply do not understand and that they alternately deny or won't explain. I could just bury my head under a pillow and sleep a lot (a/k/a wallow in misery), which is my first self-pitying instinct, but what I will do is deliberately engage positive energy as much as I can. And remember to stick with it. Wish me luck.

Labels: about me, gk1, good ideas

Note to self: must find out what cameras these people use - their photos are, to a one, gorgeous.

1. First stop, John Baker who's a professional writer with a terrific blog. He says that "writers write to learn, to explore, to discover, to hear themselves saying what they do not expect to say" - and that's certainly what he does here. He quotes from novels and poems, and is always interesting, usually stimulating, frequently funny. Today's "old children's rhyme" reminds me of the best of Schoolhouse Rock, and Vonnegut's Eight rules for writing fiction are fascinating, and when you think about it, the best fiction does actually observe these rules! This is going to be one of my favorites places.

2. Demob Happy Teacher is Welsh and introduces her blog with the statements "The good side of getting older is that you have the confidence to say what you think, whether people like it or not. The downside is that you slide gradually into invisibility - unless you have 'attitude'". The photos are divine, the comments amusing and spot-on, the topics covered all over the place which is how I like a lot of my online reading. I knew there were terrific looking sheep in Wales but I wasn't expecting a beautiful beach.

3. Arthur Clewley's Diary is posted in North Yorkshire and is gorgeous, replete with lovely photos (do all Brits and UK'ers know how to take good photos - as well as act - ?) and written, as are the above two, to draw you in and hold you. I didn't know that Sylvia Plath is buried in Heptonstall; did you?? If I wasn't pretty much hooked by then, when I got to the photo of the extremely silly trio of alpacas - and Arthur's query about these "horses" - then the preceding one about the daffodils would have done the trick.

4. Then I got tricked into clicking over to Mutterings and Meanderings because they were smart enough to use that first word (heh). Today featuring a piece on Richard the Lionheart as it does, I'm a goner already. I can't remember the names of them, but Thomas Costain wrote four or five (or more) books on the British monarchs (including Richard and Eleanor) and the books made both an anglophile and a reader out of me. So if someone says "Richard the Lionheart", I'm all theirs. M&M's post on the grey mare is a gem, not to be missed, as is post on being a "bookworm".

5. Seemingly less involving, Pig in the Kitchen is actually mesmerizing. It's a recipe blog because of her daughter's dietary restrictions . . . and the recipes and photos are pheNOMenal. If this is what restricted looks (and almost certainly tastes) like, then count me in! The Mother's Day Truffles, the chocolate bowls that hold strawberries (yum!), the Easter biscuits, the smug 'n' spicy vegetable dish (golly it looks good) . . . now I'm drooling and will have to replace my keyboard. After I do some cooking.

Just what I needed: five new places that I simply have to stop by and read every day.

Labels: blogs (others')

The Washington Post's article today entitled Pratfall in Damascus talks about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the mid-East and her [essentially ex officio] attempt to set foreign policy as if she were a member of the State Department. The article expresses strong disapproval of her actions partly because it's inappropriate for her present policy and partly because she interpreted what she was told by Syrian and Israeli officials. So thoroughly misinterpreted that they corrected her publicly and in print. (Whew.) Perhaps one lesson to be learned is that diplomacy does not come down simply to smiling and being polite. Perhaps she needs to understand that international political statements usually have at least four meanings which are entirely surrounded by smoke and mirrors, and that the trick is to know which one is 'real' while continuing to smile and be gracious, publicly. I guess the Speaker thought she could get by on the novelty of her win combined with her strenuous disagreement with GWB. I guess she was wrong.

In any case, what's most surprising about the Post's article is that the paper's opinions about the current administration are, at best, negative, and yet they wrote this:

[S]he is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.

Which means, I hope, that we are witnessing the beginning of a return to balance in opinion-speaking in Washington.

Labels: people, politics

On Wednesday morning a point of view which had not been presented in stories on my friend's murder was included in a front page story. That's because I was quoted, and my name printed, along with a couple of sentences from an email I wrote to the so-called journalist who's been covering the arson-murder-suicide of my friend - but without my prior knowledge or authorization.

This is what they quoted: "I have to tell you that another friend and I feel certain that she would never have agreed to ending her life like this. It is simply inconceivable to us that she would have agreed to something as horribly gruesome and violent as a gunshot suicide pact."

The good news is that the quote was accurate and what I said completely true. But imagine seeing your very own name and words from a private (you thought) email right there on the front page. I doubt it was legal but I am loathe to protest lest that show up on the front page too. (Which must be why the likes of Britney and George stay quiet when we'd expect them to speak up.)

What had happened was that a day or so after my friend was murdered and having read one too many suggestions that she was complicit in the horrible event, I wrote an email to the bylined author. She wrote back the next day to say she would take my comments into consideration and definitely let me know what developed in the investigation. She also said she might contact me for a quotation or two for a future piece. I guess that was all hogwash since a mere two days later, she simply plopped my name and words right down. So beware what you write or say . . . and, by implication, what you read.

Labels: about me, friends, reflections, writing

It's dismaying to me that Gina was voted off. Unfortunately the voting public seems to prefer legs and lots of hair to an unusual appearance and singing style. Gina was the first girl cut from a different mold, and it would have been terrific to see more of her. With any luck, a record company thinks so, too, and she'll follow the Jennifer Hudson route to success.

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

Only a very few sites have published this photo (for the obvious reason, I suppose, that GWB's horns and cloven hooves aren't visible). But it so deserves publicity, along with the Anchoress's and Don Surber's posts on the occasion and the photo. There are still many of us who recognize that GWB is a kind and decent man, president to all of us not only his supporters and not only those with whom he agrees. The occasion was the honoring of Tuskegee airmen who served in WWII and, just as those young men defended justice and freedom with grace despite whatever injustices they had personally experienced, Bush uses his own strength to support Byrd without a hint of noblesse oblige or big-shot-ism, in order to assist the older man to walk to the ceremony, no matter that they disagreed and still do, simply out of respect for someone who served the country for many many years. I hope that, in time, he and his steadfast devotion to what we supposedly hold most dear (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) will be recognized and properly honored.

Labels: gwb, people, reflections

The Brits have been released. Now perhaps we'll find out what this was really all about. Or not, since much of what it was about is cultural and ideological, not factual.

Labels: headlines, people, politics

American classical songs are often fantastic combinations of tuneful melodies and interesting lyrics. Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, Rodgers, Hart, etc., etc. And indeed some of the songs the idolaters (heh) sang last night are wonderful songs. But you'd be hard-pressed to prove it by how most of them sounded.

--Even the usually fantastic Lakisha sounded pretty bad - she was sharp and off key through most of it. What was with that? Do they all need gimmickry to sound okay?

--Phil really does have a terrific voice so the trick with him is to listen without looking - probably not a good characteristic for someone in an American Idol contest.

--Haley scared me with that really really bright green dress that made her boobs all crinkly and drained her color so she looked like an aging movie star (except for her endless legs, of course).

--Jordin and Gina continue to sound like real singers and performers to me, people whose albums I'd actually consider buying and who can put a song over in ways that aren't cookie cutter copies of Aguilera and Spears and the rest. (Read the Anchoress's paragraphs on Jordin and Gina for a longer and better statement of why I like Gina, especially, so much.) I'd love it if one of them were to win the whole kit and kaboodle.

--The other boys (Chris, Sanjaya and Blake) are soooooo uninteresting that I'm not going to say anything about them.

--Melinda did her customarily super rendition but I'm increasingly irritated because I truly don't think she belongs there. She's not an amateur. And I'm sure contracts are pencilled in, just waiting. (At the end of Ann Althouse's column, "Joan" puts it even more succinctly, saying she thinks Melinda's nice-girl-who's-amazed-at-everyone's-reaction is a fake. I'm not sure she's wrong!) And don't hate me, but I think Sanjaya is more in the spirit of the competition than Melinda - how's that for sacrilege?! A.I. is partly about crowning a terrific singer but it's also about who viewers like to see perform.

Anyway, as for who will get eliminated tonight, I'm going to say Lakisha, believe it or not. It's probably not a good choice - Haley would make more sense - but that's my prediction.

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

Lovely post in remembrance of "Grandma" at Not So Confidential.

Labels: farewells, people

Recognizing that forty years of loving Paul (McCartney) may blind us to seeing Heather Mills objectively, and giving her her due for dancing and performing amazingly on Dancing With the Stars, nevertheless it is impossible to get my head around how someone who will get no less than $49 million can expect sympathy or say with a straight face that she is "not" a wealthy woman. (Read this.)

Labels: celebrities, people, reflections

I claim to dislike these things but I do them a lot. Although several answers depend on accurately guessing which style book the authors use (for things like commas inside or outside quotation marks, plural or singular collective nouns, etc.), it is fun.

Your English Skills:

Grammar: 100% Punctuation: 100% Spelling: 100% Vocabulary: 100%

Labels: fun

Read this and see what you think.

Labels: pcness, politics

Try as I might -- because I really prefer to ignore Rosie's rants because she's so mean-spirited and out of control and so factually wrong (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was imprisoned in 2003 not 1993 eight years before 9-11, GWB does attend funerals and visit families of soldiers killed in Iraq, the NYT did cover the anti-war demonstration in January and there were not 'hundreds of thousands' in attendance, Cheney never voted against gay rights, Osama's name is not Obama, disliking the Dixie Chicks' remarks is not even remotely the same as the HUAC hearings, etc., etc.) -- but now that she's perpetrating the same crazy science about the World Trade Center as the conspiracy theorist I met on the train in October, I must first say that if the government had done this to make some twisted point seeking favor from the multitudes, the very last thing on earth that they would have destroyed would have been the epicenter of their 'financial empire' even if they were so hateful and callous as to be willing to sacrifice thousands of citizens' lives. Second, read Dadvocate's amusing and succinct reaction and, finally, read Popular Mechanics point-by-point analytical piece on the physics and science of the destruction.

Labels: celebrities, science, tv

April 1st should be focused on silliness but, instead, for me there is confusion and sadness.

A friend has been murdered. Violently, with a shotgun, by her husband, who also burned their house down and killed himself as well. It feels surreal, like a bad movie being filmed in my head. One newspaper says some think it was a murder-suicide pact but that's not possible, not this way.

My friend was a strong, intelligent, capable woman who had risen from clerical positions to become a manager of global technology at a major corporate bank. She also adored handcrafts which is how I met her, at a local knitting shop, about two years ago, before she became ill with cancer. She would hang out and delight in new wool, new techniques, new friends. Helpful, curious, learning new techniques, always smiling, always encouraging, always enjoying things and people.

She'd completed chemotherapy and radiation seven months ago, had gained weight and looked fantastic. She'd been knitting again and had just bought a fancy spinning wheel. (Do spinners commit suicide??!) She was commuting a few days a week to the office. She was one of the most upbeat people I've ever known.

Which is why another friend and I feel certain she would never have agreed to ending her life like this. We think something must have happened to make her husband snap, feel that he had no other recourse in that outward-aggression way that men seem sometimes to think is a good way to solve things.

As recently as a few weeks ago, our friend talked about retiring early so as to knit, weave and garden. Even if the cancer had returned and was untreatable - or she was unwilling to be treated - we feel sure she would have done whatever she had to do until the end. Furthermore, she was vocally religious and such violence is not a good spiritual way to end this life. It is inconceivable to us that she would have agreed to something as horribly gruesome and violent as a gunshot suicide pact. And yes I realize that people often are different in private than how we know them. But this is not a kind way to leave. Nor is it kind to leave so much for everyone to deal with and try to understand. She was too giving, kind, funny, sweet, strong, spiritual and lovely to have willingly participated in this.

And she would not have left her family and friends without saying good-bye to us, and letting us say farewell to her, gently.

Labels: farewells, people, reflections