The other day I found myself thinking how far we've come from the reflective and generally kind atmosphere in the aftermath of 9/11. I wasn't going to write about it because I didn't want anyone thinking I was wishing for another attack in this country. But then this morning's incident in London (horrifyingly, right where I spent many days among shops, theaters and restaurants). I work in NYC and it's been peaceful and pleasant for a long time (thanks to Rudy G., in the first place, and, unfortunately, to 9/11 in the second). In the last few months, people seem to have resumed the pre-9/11 level of rudeness and loudness, pushing each other in the street without any hesitation, chattering on cellphones, blaring iPods (instead of Walkmen). Laura at Wide Awake Café is remarking, too, on the political disunity that seems to have overtaken some of our elected officials, the latest example of which is their demand for White House papers with regard to warrantless wiretapping. She says that for a while after September 11th, "we could see ourselves as a nation clearly. We knew we had a battle to fight. We had the chance to unite and defend our land." She points out that "average Americans are not being listened to by the Political class. Our attempts to express our opinions [are] met with arrogance and derision." I have to say it seems she is correct. It's very puzzling. It's one thing for them to hate the person of the executive, quite another to abdicate the responsibilities of their own offices.

Should this administration have allowed all the events they prevented? Perhaps that would have made it evident that there is an ongoing situation - a war, in fact. It's be a shame to think that was necessary. I'd hate to think so many of us are so foolish or looking through such heavily tinted glasses that we need to have our hands shoved into the wound before we see it and believe there really is one.

Labels: gwb, headlines

I referred to a song lyric yesterday and rare reader CGHill pointed out that I attributed it to the wrong writer. In fact "and I don't like anybody very much" is from "The Merry Little Minuet" by Sheldon Harnick who wrote the lyrics to some very important musicals (Fiddler on the Roof, She Loves Me and Umbrellas of Cherbourg, among them). Interestingly, Wikipedia mentions that this song "is in the caustic style usually associated with Tom Lehrer and is sometimes incorrectly attributed to him" and apparently Lehrer performed it with the Kingston Trio (who went on to have a big hit with it) and on his own, which adds to the association. Anyway, the lyrics are so apt that I have to reprint them:

They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida, And Texas needs rain. The whole world is festering With unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans The Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs South Africans hate the Dutch And I don't like anybody very much.

In far away Siberia They freeze by the score An avalanche in Switzerland Just got fifteen more. But we can be tranquil And thankful and proud For man's been endowed With a mushroom shaped cloud. And we know for certain That some lovely day Someone will set the spark off and we will all be blown away.

Can you tell when this was written? Except for the mushroom cloud reference, it's scarily identical to what would work right now.

Labels: music, writing

Yes, Virginia, there's a growing sense that global warming is cyclical and natural (not particularly aided by us) and waning and that global cooling is on the way in. A commenter at Fresh Bilge provided this link from the U.K., and the FB post entitled Ups & Downs is a great summary of current thinking with a bit of wryness thrown in for good measure. It reads a little like the Tom Lehrer song that ends with "and I don't like anybody very much" or a revival call-out. They're both must-reads.

Labels: headlines, weather

Haven't been able to post comments on Texas Scribbler or Spiced Sass for ages. I get any of two or three messages, usually about the url being inaccessible. What's up with that? Do I have to leave comments here, for all the world to see? Maybe I need to set up a message page and one post with comments for each of them.

Labels: blogs (others')

No one can blame Elizabeth Edwards for disliking Ann Coulter's saying that if John Edwards is going to keep harping on what she (Ann) says, she'll wish he was killed in a terrorist attack. But it's worthwhile to keep in mind that this wish-he-was-killed-by-terrorists business was started by Bill Maher when he said he wished Vice President Cheney had been killed by insurgents in Afghanistan.

Free speech is important and I'm all for it, but self-control and useful dialogue are dandy, too.

Labels: headlines, politics

Haven't parents travelling with babies, especially on a 90-minute commuter train, ever heard of bringing toys and food? What's wrong with people???! I know the effect of such negligence is cruel to the rest of us, but isn't it neglect and cruelty to the baby, too?

Labels: huh?, whining

Did anyone else notice that Paris Hilton looked relaxed and unphony when she walked out of jail last night? That may be the first genuine smile I've ever seen on her and she actually looked pretty.

I do have to say that I enjoyed one newsman's comments (Jonathan Hunt) in the wee hours (yes, I was awake and heard it my very own self):

This is a very different liberation of Paris than the one we all celebrated August 25, 1944. It may show how the culture has changed that we're now celebrating this liberation of a very different sort of Paris...

and his wry observations that Paris's mother left the windows open so the photographers could get unencumbered photos and that neither Paris nor her mother seemed to be wearing seatbelts but that it was unlikely the police would stop her because they wouldn't want to start this all over again.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, huh?

Barbara Walters turned down the post-jail Paris Hilton interview because it wasn't important enough - as opposed to the interview with the Menendez brothers?!?!?! Please somebody rescind Walters' press pass. Can you say disingenuous and b*&^%#t and oh for heaven's sake? I wonder what the real reason is.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, huh?

Still haven't plunged in. Still limping along with the small Musetek I got at QVC or HSN several eons ago. It takes good outdoor photos but doesn't do as well indoors and anyway I want snazzier pictures. I tried those sites that promise to show you which cameras you should consider but they simply ignore some things such as size of LCD (ideally 3") and manual controls (I want a lot available tho' not required) and shutter speed (quick, of course), etc., etc. (which is why I'm not going to link any of them). They seem to have agendas about particular cameras (pro Canon, anti Nikon) and certain criteria they weigh more heavily than others (even though they don't tell you so). For example, I said no less than a 2.5" LCD yet three sites showed me cameras with 1.8". I said uncompressed tiff or raw mattered yet they showed me cameras with none. Wouldn't you think a computer could gather information based on one's wish-list? I would. Yes I could just close my eyes and point at the Nikon or Sony that comes closest (I've been disappointed with Fuji's and Canon's coloring and sharpness, and am wary of most other brands) but that seems lame. Anyone got any great ideas of how to go about doing this rationally?

Labels: photos, shopping

Having been tagged by Barb the evil genius (who is anything but evil from my knowledge of her), here are some eight things people may not know about me:

1. Despite a straightforward and factual way of speaking, I am actually quite unsure about how people feel about me. I feel both confident and insecure, at the same time. Which can be uncomfortable, to say the least, although I think people think I think I'm sure of myself.

2. I love to drink a small glass of icy cold Diet Coke just before bed.

3. Although I read and do work around my house whenever I'm home, I seem unable to do it without either the tv or radio being on. I try silence and even like it for a few minutes and then pay more attention to the silence than whatever I'm doing.

4. I love my job and work for a terrific company. Plus, my manager is one of the nicest and best supervisors; she's worth writing about (note to self). Nevertheless, I wish I had followed my college goal and pursued teaching philosophy and logic in grammar and high school.

5. I still love stupid jokes like the ones I liked when I was a child (elephant jokes, knock-knock jokes, etc.).

6. When I was a child, I adored playing with dolls. I had several that were 4 or 5 inches tall and made of cloth (I wonder whatever became of them, now that I think of it). I remember sitting on the floor underfoot while my mother made dinner, moving the dolls around in whatever story they were living that day.

7. My first cat was named Nijinsky and was orange and white. I adored him. (He was named Nijinsky because he could leap so high without a running start. He'd stand in front of the refrigerator, look up, and seemed to rise up to the top where he'd sit and purr and watch us.)

8. I would really like to know how to turn actual events that happened into very entertaining stories.

I hope that wasn't too boring for any rare readers. If, among them, are Ligneus, Muttering / Meanderings and Elephant's Child, then they should consider themselves tagged even if they do not ordinarily engage in such things.

Labels: about me, blogs (others')

I want Laura who muses to come back from vacation. I don't care how good a time she's having. I miss reading her. Waaaaaa.

Why does BlogRolling show "new" only for five of my listings??

My back hurts from being hunched over a craft table all day which is entirely my own obsessive fault.

I wish I'd be less critical of myself as far as knitting, crocheting, jewelry, computers, etc.

I want three days in a weekend. Two isn't even close to enough when you have a lot to do. And in my case, it's the "real" stuff I always let slide (ironing, grocery shopping, etc.) since it's only me that suffers the annoying consequences once the work week arrives.

That's all for now. Yes I know I'm lucky that I have nothing important to whine about right now.

Labels: blogs (others')

I kind of like the idea of an independent having a significant position in the political arena (ref. Michael Bloomberg's departure from the Republican party), maybe even being President. Both major parties have become swampy and festering messes of navel-gazing collegiality with unpleasant and demanding fringes who make it impossible to focus on ideas and principles. Dominant parties should encourage consensus but the reality at the moment is far from that, thus the ascendence of people who catch a lot of public interest like Ross Perot and Mike Bloomberg. In the latter case, the good news is that he's got New York City running pretty well but the bad news is that he's a fun-squelching school principal in some ways and I'm not sure the scope of his thought is big enough to run a country. A country has similarities to business but is not, in the end, a corporation. On the other hand, maybe the size of the country would make it impossible for him to run nanny-shod over all of us, were he to get that far.

Labels: politics, reflections

What's the deal with all the people who disappear, lately? I realize part of it is that cable needs to fill 24 hours of every day. But clearly it's more than that and it's very disturbing and horrible. In this latest publicized case, the idea that her son evidently saw what happened but couldn't process it is really horrifying. He'll be a perfect candidate for hypnotism when he's older. Anyway, it's quite scary that there are so many murderers and murderees in the world.

Labels: headlines

You know how sometimes you think it would be nice if everyone agreed (presumably with you)? I say that sometimes but I don't really mean it. Things are much more interesting when you hear different ideas and points of view. Some people are articulate and well-spoken, and some are emotionally charged and annoying; I listen to them all, though.

Freedom of speech is a championed and fundamental cornerstone of modern society (I suppose all cornerstones are fundamental?). People both right and left along the political spectrum cherish the ability to speak freely yet every now and then there are attempts to erode it. You'd expect the attempts to come from so-called lunatic fringes but often they come from apparently rational people. Last week there were Angelina Jolies peculiar demands that any press who wanted to interview her about her new movie neither ask personal questions nor use anything from the interview to cast her in a negative or unpleasant light. Sheesh. At least everyone knew it was nutty on account of she's nutty. Gorgeous, talented . . . and nutty.

Now comes word that Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton (and anyone else?) want to restrict talk radio. There's a myriad of problems with this right off the bat including what they mean by "talk radio." Do they mean morning dj's? Do they mean shock jocks? It's all talk radio, though the general reaction is that B&H mean political chatterers like Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Some of whom are calm, rational and interesting. Sure, some are not, but so what? And by the way, there are several commentators on the left who offend people, too, but same answer.

One perhaps obvious point is that radios have on-and-off switches. No one needs to listen to what they don't like. If an offending show's advertisers don't sell products, the jig will be up. Political talk radio commentators don't use scatological language, don't encourage people to have sex in St. Patrick's, don't make fun of people as their stock in trade. What they do do is to voice opinions and sometimes talk with listeners who have opinions (sometimes opinions different from theirs).

Radio talkers have millions of listeners, incidentally. Millions. Do Barbie and Hill think people should be prohibited from public expression of valid-though-different opinions and tastes from theirs? (Many of them vote, by the way.) Why should they be taken off the air? Unacceptable public behavior includes shooting people, cheating people, hating people, starving people, preventing people from attending schools or meetings, and other things like that. Voicing opinions is not unacceptable behavior. Everyone must be able to speak their minds and be confident that nothing bad will happen to them as a result.

Labels: headlines, reflections

The temperature, humidity, breezes, etc. are all just perfect in NYC today. Remember when we could have classes outside on the grass? Ah, the good old days.

Labels: about me, weather

Something's going on. Technorati doesn't display any posts. The comments and/or the script that displays them hangs up the page. This has been going on for the last hour or so. It finally occurred to me to troubleshoot by disabling possible culprits but what the heck is that about and who's responsible and can I whack them upside the head? (P.S. 4:35 and all's well.)

Labels: blogs (mine), web design

1. Petite Dov. Found this via reference of Anwyn's Notes. It's very cool. I like the gray background with vivid green titles so much I might do it myself one of these day (but only if I decide to forego the plainer more readable white background). She's acerbic and doesn't spellcheck very much, but she's a barrel of laughs and good observations.

2. Englishman in New York. I had to look her. I love the banner photo (subway with American flag just visible and expectant lad waiting for the door to open). Slightly cramped look because the narrow text area shares about 25% with ads. But it's great otherwise. I like his question about the MP who's just as nutty as Muslims who give a hoot about Satanic Verses and/or Rushdie's knighthood. (Freedom of speech and thought, anyone?? Remember them?) Turns out he's a freelance writer (loads of credits), lived in Cornwall (Penzance and Land's End are THE best!), eats Sushi, likes technie things, writes lovelily and is an Englishman. What more could I ask for? I'm astonished he's been at this since October 04 and I missed it til now.

3. Which sent me to WordPress Themes by Sadish, a place I would neither have gone nor visited except for Bloghopping Thursday. I'm not a huge fan of the way most WordPress blogs look - they're too much the same, for one thing - but his images and tweaks are awesome. The image on his own header at the moment (a really nifty view of San Francisco's GG bridge) is breathtaking.

4. Englishman in NY has zillions of links so I'll bloghop from him in the future too but last stop today is Ironic Sans, the blog of a professional photographer (lucky man) and bemused observer of various and sundry people and things. I love his post on the typography and graphics of a new book that's riding another's success and his suggestion for a hamburdog - I can't wait to make one! and his sense of humor. His quirky reactions can be wonderful (read this). I had a similar reaction to his about the newly minted phrase/word "f-bomb" which strikes me as ridiculously prim, arch and stupid but what do I know. Terrific blog.

Happy hopping!

Labels: blogs (others')

The bad news is that newly discovered charges not by me are still turning up. The good news is that I was carrying some revolving bills that would not - simply would not - terminate, no matter how many calls and emails I sent (can you say fly-by-night) and those accounts can't access my account. Boo hoo. So I've gotten three emails (which leaves two more that I know of) bemoaning their inability to get their monthly small pittance (<$5). I called one of them. They're in India and unintelligible and have rehearsed answers for every question (surprise). Unhelpful, unresponsive, but at least the account is closed.

Labels: about me

Two things I need explained, please: (1) what facts are so astronomically different than what we the public knows, that made a judge award custody (not shared custody, mind you, plain old everyday every day custody) of two children to David Hasselhoff, and (2) why it matters or we should care or anyone would be the least bit surprised that Elizabeth Hasselbeck doesn't think she and Rosie are friends.

Labels: celebrities, huh?, reflections

I decided to try BlogRolling but I'm puzzled because the updated tag shows only on a few, missing several I know have new posts within the last few hours. I used 48 hours as the time span to test it with the largest amount and then narrow it down if need be. Using anything shorter reduces the numbers even further. Is there something else I should do?

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

All right, all right, I'm on the bandwagon now, too, thanks to Spiced Sass's mention. He won the whole kit and kaboodle last evening and got himself a recording contract. Watch his first audition (here) and hoist yourself up beside me and the others. Plus, watching is worth it just to see the looks on the faces of Simon Cowell, Amanda Holden, and Piers Morgan and hear the audience. British reserve? Yuh. As Morgan (the editor of the Daily Mail) wrote:

One minute you're seeing someone make a complete imbecile of themselves, the next you see something so surprisingly talented that you feel your heart flutter with excitement.

It seems they got quite the real deal this year. Paul Potts' voice is extraordinary. Though never formally trained, there's no thinning or straining in the upper registers and, in fact, his tones through all the range are full. I hope they let him take his voice where aficionados pay him compliments, even if grudgingly, instead of being a sensation and leaving it there. It's all wonderful for him, of course, and good luck! Mobile phone salesman one day, singing sensation the next. Crazy world, this.

Anyway, read Morgan's whole piece and check out the show's website and various performances here (good luck getting on today, however). Plus, YouTube has several performances. And, by the way, what is it about music and Wales (Bryn Terfel, Charlotte Church, Mary Hopkin, Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones, John Cale, etc., etc.)?? Water? Geography?? What?

P.S. If you don't believe me, read what Wide Awake Café's husband's wrote. Wow.

Labels: music, tv

Happily, Foyle's War returned to NYC area last night, though was advertised for two weeks prior on the PBS website. There is little as pleasant in television drama as time spent in Hastings during WWII with D.I. Foyle and Samantha.

That's the good part. The bad part is two-fold. First, PBS had said they were also broadcasting two new episodes of Jericho (the British Robert Lindsay one) but they are nowhere to be seen on the NYC schedule. Fortunately, WMHT (Albany) did, but at 5:09 and 7:04 respectively on Sunday. Lots of people sit around at home on Sunday afternoon watching serious dramas, right? Yes, well, the broadcasts were actually part of - come on, you can guess - pledge drives! Thank heavens for Tivo. I would give my right arm if they'd just use regular commercials. Stop the fakery of "non commercial" and pledge drives. They're not non-commercial, really, if you notice the "brought to you by" pieces for cars and food and other things to buy (a/k/a commercials).

The other bad part, and another reason why PBS should hang their disingenuous head in shame, is that they used their now-usual lack of finesse to chop parts of the Foyle's War episode so as to cram it into the time they'd decided to give it. For details on proof of the editing, read Missy's post on this. One cut in particular (the circled date on the calendar) made a big difference in terms of what happened to the murdered girl, but apparently plot satisfaction is irrelevant to the PBS muckymucks who could be heard whispering, 'buy the DVD set if you want the whole thing.'

PBS has become a place that offers little of quality though it holds itself up with self-satisfied trendy smugness as they write and talk about how much better they are than commercial networks. They display little or no respect for their audience or the material. It's very frustrating and very sad.

Labels: about me, reflections, tv

Most alarming occurrence. My bank called - on a Sunday? It was the fraud division. There had been some "unusual" activity on my bank card and they wanted to check. First of all, I was both alarmed and pleased (relieved) that they have programs and/or people paying such close attention. Then, after recovering from the initial surprise, I listened to the items that had been red flags and indeed they were not transactions I had made. None was for a huge amount but altogether it was about a thousand dollars so it's good to have it back and any possible resulting overdrafts covered as well.

But what happened, one asks. I hadn't lost my card and I don't have a duplicate that went missing or anything. The only thing I can identify that changed, on the very day these charges began, was that I switched to Firefox for browsing and working on my blog, etc. And the very stores I browsed at, that day, were the ones that had bogus charges. There were also a few at places I've never browsed, but it's way too coincidental that Firefox and the charges began the same day I began using Firefox. It's also a real shame because I like the current Firefox's speed, interface, etc.

There were no problems with the bank's own website, thank goodness, but my card is being changed immediately (a new number to memorize) and I shall be checking my account log much more careful from now on, obviously. And, needless to say, I'm back to I.E.

By the way, have any rare readers ever experienced this with Firefox or I.E.?

Labels: about me

From Don Spurber today:

President Bush called Pope Benedict XVI “sir” instead of “your Holiness.” Rivers turned to blood, a plague of locusts hit Texas and the first-born son of every Cabinet member turned gay.

Yes, people should take unimportant things less seriously.

Labels: blogs (others'), fun, headlines

Father's Day is soon upon us and after sending amusing gifts and complimentary notes to my son and son-in-law, I started musing about the vastly different fathering that the current crop of young children receives than did my generation. I was raised a few thousand years ago, so it's hard to remember what it was like but the most admired children were supposed to look adorable (hair combed, clothes clean and neat, etc.), act deferential and be polite to all adults, utter very few or no words in public, never say "ow" or "no" or in any other way indicate a ruffled feather, and certainly always do what we were told. I felt I had committed a terrible crime if I cried because a cut hurt or said I didn't want to do what had been asked of me. Imagine, therefore, how huge it was for me at a holiday dinner when I was in my mid-twenties and my mother asked "would you like to set the table now, dear?" and I said "no." She burst into tears (passive-aggression poster child adult that she was) which propelled me to tell her she should simply have told me to set the table. She looked at me as if I had spoken in Pluto-ese. But apologies for getting side-tracked. Back to the subject on hand.

Today's fathers (those of whom I am aware, in any case) share parenting more or less equally with mothers. Children are now the offspring both literally and behaviorally of two parents. That must seem so reasonable to a child! Even fathers who are corporate lawyers and CEOs hang pictures on their office walls of their just-born infants and adorn their bulletin boards and desks with bright colored crayon drawings from their children. They have silly conversations with their children even when colleagues might overhear. I've seen all this with my very own eyes. It's wonderful.

What's puzzling and not at all wonderful, however, is how fathers are depicted in movies and television shows nowadays. In many ways, movies and tv shows are the cultural descriptors and depicters of a generation, so it's really unfortunate.

Years ago, fathers were people who went to the office and came home to exert discipline or fix things or cook barbecues. They were almost never involved in the daily workings of the family except to keep everybody in line. They were idealized but untouchable. And yet there were the ever-involved, always-wise, always-kind and understanding Jim Anderson (Robert Young in Father Knows Best), Ward Cleaver (Leave It To Beaver) and Carl Betz's Alex Stone (Donna Reed Show), among others. Ozzie Nelson (The Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet) was a bit of a flibbertigibbet and he whined terribly but occasionally had wise helpful things to offer.

Flash ahead and now we have Jim Belushi (Jim) who is a bumbling jerk with occasional moments of sweetness, Jon Cryer (Two and a Half Men) who is out of it as well as incompetent (although very funny) and Clark Gregg (Richard in The New Adventures of Old Christine) who can be charming but is utterly ineffective. And films with pathetic or ghastly fathers (American Beauty, The Great Santini, The Shining (ha ha), Liar Liar, Father of the Bride (both Spencer Tracy's and Steve Martin's), The Sopranos, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, etc., etc.

For a good essay on this subject, read M.K. Freeberg's The Doofus Dad List. Seriously, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a nice, smart, effective, competent father in just a few films and tv shows?!

Labels: holidays, parenting

Cool new gadget from answers.com - an "answer this" button. It's over there on the left, under the recent comments list. The deal is that you double-click any word (literally: any word) on this page and get a definition plus synonyms and usage, so it's an information gadget more than a dictionary. Seriously, how cool is that?! Actually, answers.com has many features and I'll have to look into them and report on those I like.

Labels: web

1. During a recent Internet meandering, I found Mad Housewife. It's eclectic to say the least, covering as it does "Modern household management from baking to mental health . . . in a fun, intelligent and worth-doing way" which pretty much leaves things wide open. Her blog doesn't look quite like anyone else's, which is nice, even though it uses WordPress. Her description of herself made me want to read more and I've been well rewarded for that impulse. She often has great suggestions - from making bags, to having fun eating treats, going to Ikea and lots more - and her tone is always upbeat and excited. Apparently she hopes to write a book on how to run a home in a creative way, and I think she's well on the way.

2. A Woman of Many Parts is striking to look at, surprisingly so when you consider that she used a blogspot template somewhere in there. What's more surprising is that it's a good place to visit and not at all depressing especially when you consider that Minerva (her real name?) is a breast cancer survivor and writes a lot about the travails and thoughts with which she wrestles. Her tone of voice is light and clear, and she has many interesting things to say. In particular, I enjoyed her piece on the word "can't" which is a mixture of realism and humor. Her post on friendship with a sick person is terrific. And, by the way, there's not one tiny tiny infinitesimal drop of self-pity anywhere. Her reflections on herself, life, health, life - all things, really - are well worth the visit.

3. Which led to Imagine What I'm Leaving Out which is a reincarnation of an older blog (Just Ask Judy) by a North Carolinian flower designer, lucky woman! While I'm imagining what she's leaving out (cute title), I also can't imagine a more enjoyable life than designing flower beds and landscaping. Okay, there are bound to be physical annoyances like poison ivy and barking dogs, but how wonderful to bring visual beauty everywhere you go. She reminded me that I'd heard this but she has a nice tribute to Don Herbert (Mr. Wizard) who died Tuesday, leaving many of us bereft, if only in our childhood memories. It can't be as much fun to be a kid these days, without him. And I love her photos from her trip to Australia - ooh what gorgeous flowers.

Labels: blogs (others')

Rather than simply passing on what was said, and to have a little fun while involving any rare readers in registering what was said, and only if you'd like to join in, read the two paragraphs and then write your answers to the questions in a comment.

"I think [cable news network 1] and [cable news network 2] delight in showing Iraqi violence because they want Americans to think badly of President Bush. And that strategy has succeeded. So their Iraqi coverage is more political than informational, again in my opinion. [I] could be wrong about [cable news network 1]. I'm not wrong about the . . . crew over at [broadcast network].

"There's little news value in broadcasting daily bombings. By the way, [cable news network 3] continues to crush [cable news network 1] and [cable news network 2] in the ratings, [showing that viewers] know news when they see it."

Now the questions.

1. Identify cable news network 1.
2. Identify cable news network 2.
3. Identify the broadcast network.
4. Identify cable news network 3.
5. Who said this?

Answers to come in comments sometime in the next few days. Wasn't that fun??

Labels: politics, tv

I love these things, especially when I think they come out accurately.

Your Personality is Very Rare (ENTP) Your personality type is optimistic, curious, enthusiastic, and open. Only about 4% of all people have your personality, including 3% of all women and 5% of all men. You are Extroverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Perceiving.

Labels: about me

While meandering around some of the blogs in my links column, I spent some time at Villainous Company, which is always enjoyable, and was just quietly reading along when what should appear but the retort to the ultra-conspiracy theorists about the WTC. First, in a time and place where Paris Hilton's sweatshirt makes it onto front pages, how did the president of the United States convince real people to plot and carry out attacks on real targets for his own convenience and political capital without anyone spilling the beans? Second and perhaps more to the point, how did a man succeed in planning and organizing and carrying out such a feat who has what they consider to be something approximating "the awesome intellectual prowess of a retarded chimp." Eh? eh??

Labels: gwb, reflections

This past Saturday and Sunday I took two knitting classes led by Lucy Neatby of Tradewind Knitwear Designs. It turned out to be one of those times when something perfectly pleasant although not noticeably earth-shattering at the time completely changes your consciousness. I know that sounds melodramatic and overstated, but it's true. The classes were held at the always wonderful Cornwall Yarn Shop and since nearly everyone I've encountered there is encouraging and friendly, and given that Gail (the owner) had been even more than usually enthusiastic about Lucy, I expected to have a good time and probably learn some good things. But it was so much more.

Lucy considers knitting an art, and knitters as both technicians and artists. She would seem to be on a mission to help knitters who are willing, to move toward understanding its potential and realizing their (our) own.

To begin with, her designs and work are amazing -- full of colors that knock you out (the photos are clues to that), patterns and humor that are amazing. She loves "playing around with yarn and other ingredients," as she says on her website, and, indeed, her designs, her instructions, her comments, her guidance all have a wonderful sense of play. But she also is a meticulous technician and her instructions are geared toward passing on some of her fantastic techniques.

Theoretically the classes were about socks and two-sided knitting, but there was so much more. We learned how stitches are built and why they work or don't work as we want them to. We learned to "read" knitting and why we should treat stitches well. We learned innovative ways to cast-on effectively and bind off efficiently and attractively. We learned a positively revolutionary way to begin a 4-dpn project such as a sock or mitten. We learned how to insert heels so socks fit feet snugly and comfortably. We learned double (two-sided) knitting in a way that makes me wonder why we don't everything that way. We learned techniques for casting on and knitting two-sided projects like pillows and bags, and for working with two colors on two sides at the same time. She made us feel as if it's perfectly reasonable and possible to produce work like the diagonal socks shown here. She made us believers that we can and will have patience with our work rather than try to strong-arm it into submission. Sure enough, then and there in class, pockets sprouted from our samples and one-piece/two-sided bags displayed alternate color schemes on each side. And why not?! It's all clever and logical and fun.

And it's all informed by her philosophy is that "it doesn't matter how you get there, it is the outcome that is important" even though careful and precise techniques are involved. She avoids and dislikes words like "wrong" and "better" and "worse" and teaches with an unusual and startling mix of things that don't often come together in crafts or artistic endeavors: enormous calm, quiet encouragement and great excitement. That's probably why I'm already partway through the short-row-wedges-with-picot-edges-twisty-turny scarf. And can't wait to do more.

If you want to, check out her website and her patterns, and read the interview that Veronica Avery conducted and was kind enough to print on her blog -- although neither the patterns nor she come across as vibrantly onscreen as they do in person. It is, however, better than not experiencing her at all.

All I can say is that if you have a chance to take a class with Lucy, or are willing to jump into learning via DVD, you are in for many treats and many new skills, and (perhaps most important of all) a leap in your awareness about your work as well as a sense of accomplishment and joy.

Labels: knitting, reflections

June 9th is a good day to be born: Johnny Depp, Michael J. Fox, and Cole Porter. Plus one of my favorites, Bob Cummings. Plus uber guitarist Les Paul. Plus writer Patricia Cornwell. Let's celebrate!

Labels: anniversaries, juxtapositions

I thought I had figured out which topics and which types of remarks of mine would elicit reactions from readers but lately I've been surprised both in what does get reactions and what doesn't.

Labels: blogs (mine)

I'm getting mighty sick of the ranting and raving about how excessive the sentence is for PH. Of course 40 days in jail is excessive for a first DUI but that's not what the sentence was for. She was sentenced because of three subsequent blatant violations (not one, not two, but three): first she drove with a suspended license and claimed not to know she wasn't supposed to, second she did it a second time and claimed she didn't know (blah blah) and was given probation and told that she would receive a jail sentence if she violated it again. It's not complicated. So why do commentators just blow right over that?

And there's the medical records. The ones her lawyers failed to submit as part of their argument against jail time. The ones the sheriff was holding in his hands. The ones he claims were the basis for his letting her out. He never petitioned or even met with the judge about the medical issues to shorten or overturn her sentence. Instead, he violated the court order and took upon himself powers he simply doesn't have. And apparently this isn't even close to the first time he's done this.

So why does the sheriff get away with this? He didn't even bother to show up on court today (although then he might have been sent straight to jail himself!). He should be hauled into court and reprimanded for taking powers to himself that his office does not provide. Even more, he should be cited for contempt for violating a court order. We all knew so clearly he knew that the sentencing order stated clearly and explicitly that there should be no electronic monitoring, no change to house arrest, no work release or weekends off, no shortening of the (already halved) sentence. And yet Sheriff Baca made no petition to the court, simply went and altered the terms of the sentence himself. It's the equivalent of giving the judge and Lady Justice the finger and then claiming he's waving to someone.

By the way, PH is supposedly incredibly upset and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. But guess what she did last night? She had a welcome home party. Guess what she was doing thig morning? She was planning a party and getting her hair extensions refreshed. I'm not making this up. There are photos. Yes, it was party planning that she had to stop when the judge ordered her to the courthouse rather than participate via phone. That's when she started the crying and screaming about how unfair it all is. Can you say "farce" and "phony"??

Keep in mind that obeying the original 90 days' license suspension would have avoided all this. Nobody likes being in jail but if you don't do something that might result in jail, it won't happen.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, ridiculousness

In a comment to this post at Dustbury, Mister Snitch says he mixes goobers into popcorn for movie snacking. Holy cow, wow, awesome, my head is spinning and my mouth is watering! (How quickly can I stop at nearest store with both, get home, get bowl, put in newly arrived DVD, sit down. . . ?)

Labels: food, movies

I hate paying so much attention to this but the basic fairness of a society founded on law requires that everyone be expected to follow the same rules in the same way. Thus it's fascinating when someone decides to flaunt the law. And especially bizarre when one part of the law (the sheriff) is flaunting it. LAPD vs. the sheriff department vs. PH vs. the judge vs. the law.

And get this: make-up and hair people came to her house when the deputies did. And the police actually waited for her! What the heck is with that? Let's us try that and see how far we get.

I have many questions about all of this, but these are dominant: Isn't reckless driving a crime? Isn't driving with a suspended license a crime? Isn't violating the terms of your probation and/or sentence a crime? Why didn't PH just show up at court herself today? Why did she basically force the police to come to get her and drag her off to court? What insane games is PH playing? What Machiavellian games is the sheriff playing?

Keep in mind that this would never have happened and/or all have gone away in a millisecond if she'd obeyed the 90-day can't drive period and/or hired a chauffeur in the first place. Now she's violated the first restriction and two subsequent ones as well. Doesn't she have to be treated like a scofflaw? And if the sheriff wasn't trying to get extra funding and more space in a manipulative way, wouldn't he have enforced her sentence? Goofy and insane. They're all goofy and insane and they're taking California taxpayers along on their goofy and insane ride.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, ridiculousness

There was a tv show, years ago, called L.A. Law. The title was meant descriptively, I feel sure, not sarcastically the way I'm using it today. Several years of strange behavior by various and sundry members of both sides of the legal process -- lawyers and enforcement -- lead me to think there's something odd in the water there. From infamous trials to peculiar verdicts and now to bizarre behavior by a sheriff who re-interprets judicial decisions.

Yesterday I wrote about my reactions to the Paris Hilton in-and-out-of-jail situation here and here. After which, blog friend Laura wrote several comments (here, here, here and here) saying, among other things, that "people are sentenced to the L.A. County Jail with the tacit understanding that they're not actually going to serve the time, or just a couple of days, because the sheriff is not making people serve their sentences due to overcrowding." Apparently this has happened many times!! It's not that Sheriff Baca decides to let people off for good behavior. No, he simply doesn't keep them in jail. Laura wrote that "the sheriff . . . seems to have the unilateral ability to controvert the judge's sentence" and that "[a] county jail sentence often doesn't amount to much and may mean nothing at all." What the heck??!!!

Apparently the judge specifically stated in his order that Paris should serve half the original sentence (23 days) in jail and without any special treatment; she was not to be sent home and she was not to be given the ankle bracelet and put under house arrest instead. Since he stated all that so specifically, I'd think he was warning the sheriff to restrain his proclivity for sending people home. It didn't work but now that I know what the sheriff has been doing, which must have been frosting the judges, I'm willing to bet that the judge was expecting all of this and is using this highly public opportunity to slam the sheriff for his completely cavalier abuses of the system. (Which must be illegal, no?)

Also, and less interestingly but more importantly from a public relations standpoint, I'm sure he will order PH back to jail and tell her to grow up, or words to that effect. Her so-called psychiatrist will try to host a great big pity party for her delicate mental health but that's a bunch of hogwash and he's obviously one of the band of psychiatrists who give the professional a lousy name. What is it about L.A. anyway?

Labels: headlines, ridiculousness

Great. Al Sharpton, of all people, has said it perfectly, including being generous (which I would not be in this case):

Though I have nothing but empathy for Ms. Hilton . . . , this early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favoritism. . . . There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions [but] are not released. . . . I even fasted which caused health concerns to prison authorities who paid for a doctor to come see me daily rather than release me. This act smacks of the double standards that many of us raise.

Amen.

Labels: celebrities, ridiculousness

There's a new kid on the internet block: I'm With Fred. The title seems a little goofy for a presidental candidate website, to me, but no one's perfect, right? Anyway, the site works well and the message you get if you donate even a pittance is very nice. Oh, and if you want to contribute, click here. It's getting interesting....

Labels: 2008 election, politics

1. While trolling several different blogs and reading comments and clicking on some commenters' homepages, I chanced upon The Desert Glows Green which is actually physically green (!) and pleasantly interesting. This guy has clear and sometimes quirky reactions to things that often seem to focus on the point really well. In a discussion on his post entitled All or Nothing, for example, he pointed out that it's probably a bad idea to feel allegiance to a political candidate on the basis of one issue or even two, better to support someone whose outlook is closest to one's own. Really good point which I have recently written on myself (here) because of the current grumblings. Loved TDGG's post on Winston Churchill - I do always appreciate it when someone talks about the present with echoes of the past. And his Mother's Day Fun post is a good laugh. And I love his collection of art sites to visit. Another good place to visit.

2. Cute blog called Rain on My Tirade. Nice title. Wish I'd thought of it! The blog, however, is not very tirade-y. It's basically a stroll through events and thoughts that Kelley (the proprietor) finds interesting. Neat photos, too. She's not all bland and simple, though, witness for example her post entitled A rock for Atlas to lift and a world for me to discover (the title is never made clear). I do have two complaints: one, the link to her "main" page doesn't work, which makes it hard for a visiting hopper like myself, and two, she doesn't post nearly often enough. I want more!!

3. A periwinkle background graces julia {here be hippogriffs}. I love periwinkle so I didn't dismiss the blog as all pregnancy and cute hubby stories which is what it appears to be at first (and about which I am not usually smitten). Turns out better than that by far. Well written, for one thing. She's very very popular, for another, at least if one judges by the numbers of comments on each post (nearly always in the 80/90 vicinity). She has a son and a husband and gestating twins. She's a stitch.

4. Throwing my own rule to the wind, partly because julia doesn't display any links from which to hop along, I'm going to include Reading the Signs which I found via a comment at John Baker's. Its self-description sounds a bit dreary but it isn't at all, which shouldn't surprise me since she lives near a British forest and writes and reads John Baker. There's more medical stuff than interests me on the whole, but everything else is simply marvelous. Tea, scenery, photos (the ones from Mull and from Iona a couple of weeks ago are just fantastic!), traveling to London and Scotland, writing competitions, humor (humour to her, of course) and lots of other stuff. Terrific.

Labels: blogs (others')

Apparently there's a chance that Lynne Cheney will be named to fill Craig Thomas's remaining term in the U.S. Senate (here). I actually thought Lynne Cheney was already in the government, officially, and it's one of those things I just "knew" so it's been hard to shake. I think she'd be terrific, as a matter of fact. She's personable, very smart, knowledgeable about all things American history (having written several books) and quite verbal. She also doesn't suffer fools at all and yet doesn't smack them around either. Maybe she'd like to move to New York???

Labels: people, politics

Paris Hilton has been let out of jail, sent home with an ankle bracelet, due to "medical reasons." Unbelievable. I'm betting she cried her fake little eyelashes off, pouted, refused to eat, etc., etc. And an anorexic who won't eat might die, and the jail certainly didn't want that on their hands. What a totally willful, spoiled brat. (And/or if she really is such a delicate flower, then she's mentally unfit even to be on red carpets and such.) This wasn't about a DUI but flagrantly disobeying the requirement not to drive with a suspended license. And she signed not one, not two, but three statements that she was not supposed to drive, yet she continued to drive. She claims she didn't know what she signed. Come on. Is she illiterate? Don't tell me none of her guardians told her not to drive. No, I'm sure she stamped her expensively-shod feet and said she was immune from regular laws. As indeed it turns out she is, ridiculous though it seems. Why didn't she just hire a chauffeur? Oh, that's right, then she couldn't be seen through the looking glass known as her car's front window. Hey, wait, I know!! Let's everyone say we just can't take it and need to have ankle bracelets and house surveillance. Course, if any of us ordinary mortals try those antics, we'll be locked right up and for the full time, believe me. Why in heaven's name is she allowed to be so flagrantly haughty and get away with this??!

Labels: celebrities, headlines

It is impossible to take journalistic commentary seriously from a man who doesn't know enough about the U.S. government to know that a republican democracy cannot be toppled or brought down or overthrown. Cannot be. Which not everyone realizes, apparently. Former CNN reporter, Bernie Shaw, chose to publicize his derision for current cable news reporting so I figure it's only fair to publicize poking a big hole in his over-inflated self-image.

Several years ago, I was in Hong Kong on business on the day that President Clinton's dalliance with Monica was to be announced. It was the middle of the night there. I was in my hotel room, watching CNN so as to get the first word on the news. Four a.m. and Bernie Shaw stood front and center, looked the camera in the eye, spoke with a somber voice, mentioned one fact or rumor or another, paused, and said, "it's not clear that the government will last the night."

Please tell me why we should care what a man thinks about anything factual and serious who neither understands the government nor cared about stirring up so much alarm?

Labels: headlines, tv

Always a good topic. In NYC, it's raining, it's pouring, and two guys on the train were snoring.

Labels: weather

My joy at the June/July schedule on PBS (here) has been replaced by frustration and disgust. Once again, our ridiculous local PBS stations have thrown anything approximating good programming to the wind, in favor of . . . see if you can guess . . . yep, you got it! . . . yet another two weeks of pledge drive. It is utterly beyond me to know why they do pledge drives at all since everyone I know expresses derision and contempt for their programming but it's particularly offensive that they're beginning the so-called summer season like this, especially when the national network is going around advertising a wonderful show like Jericho. Which wonderful show my friends and I cannot see, of course.

Labels: tv

We all know that many news stories these days are colored red or blue by writers or editors intent on perpetrating their political viewpoint rather than 'mere' facts. Annoying as that is, it's fairly easy to discern when it comes to governmental or political issues. Far more alarming is that information is simply left out in order to put a story forward in a particular way with a particular emphasis.

Witness the National Spelling Bee. The finals took place last Thursday night and were televised on ABC, surprisingly exciting television according both to ratings and to those who watched, several NYC news anchors among them. Most surprising, however, was the New York Times story on Friday morning. For myself, reading the paper on the train, I was delighted to see a front page story on it but quickly became disappointed when I realized I had too early an edition, the conclusion I drew because it was a human interest piece about a 12-year-old from India in his third attempt to win the prize.

But this morning, as I was reading news online as is my Saturday morning wont, I discovered that my Friday Times hadn't been an early edition and the story was the one about the finals, although they didn't mention the results or the winner until the part you had to turn the page for. Why, you ask? What kind of news writing is that, you ask (lede in the first sentence and all, right)? The answer is that this writing is guided by an agenda. Writing first about the second place finisher (see first paragraph, above) allowed emphasis on implications and suggestions about immigration and foreign relations. And that pushed rest of the story to the second page. And it turns out that the winner is a 13-year-old Californian who is homeschooled. So what? Well, participants' public and private schools are usually mentioned and touted with lots of fanfare, but even the fact of his homeschooling wasn't mentioned. Why not? If it's a political agenda, I'm confused: some homeschooling parents are conservatives but some are quite the opposite. The academic issue, however, is important and interesting, and part of the facts about this year's contest. What kind of journalism simply omits germane facts altogether?

Labels: headlines

I'd like to think that no one would be so cavalier as to deliberately endanger thousands of people's health. But years ago there was the guy who started a huge number of AIDS case in San Francisco. And now there is the man who has carried tuberculosis around Europe and the east coast apparently so he could get married when and where he wanted. He is said to claim that the Centers for Disease Control "advised" him not to go but did not forbid it in so many words. On the other hand, his father taped the conversation in which he was advised not to travel. How many conversations do you tape in a given day? Doesn't that kind of prove that he was playing some kind of a deadly game? The man is a personal injury lawyer and his father-in-law is a researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, specifically in the infectious disease section. This HAS to have been some kind of exercise to prove something, although we may never know exactly what, with public opinion so thoroughly against them.

Was this really an exercise to show that security systems are porous, that one can get away with something, legally and technically, unless precisely the right word ("forbidden" in this case) is used? Okay, then let's make him legally and technically talk with each and every person he exposed, and with all their family members. And let's have him legally and technically pay for all their medical tests and treatments.

007 in Africa has a helpful guide to the diseases involved (here) and she suggests something I agree with wholeheartedly: put the man in jail. He's acted like a loaded gun in human form. Have you ever been on a plane with someone who had a colds? By the end of the flight, most of the passengers are sneezing and coughing.

This man is educated and worldly. It seems peculiar that he, his father and his father-in-law acknowledge that they knew exactly what they were doing. So what informed their decision to have him travel to Italy? Did they think they were above responsibility, somehow? Were they testing airport and customs security? And what nonsense was the border guard saying when he explained that "he didn't look sick." Hey, Mohammed Atta didn't look dangerous. And Ted Bundy looked nice. And Andrew Speaker looks rational. Shows how utterly pointless, and sometimes downright dangerous, it is to judge people by their appearance.

Labels: headlines