Last night we were talking about states of the Union that most people don't know much about and, not surprisingly, North Dakota was mentioned. My friend said something along the lines of "that was then, this is now" because North Dakota has announced that whenever any other state has their primaries or straw polls or caucuses, North Dakota has already held theirs. Who won? It's confidential. How were the winnings tallied? Confidential. How will they be apportioned? Secret. When voting takes place anywhere, it's already taken place in North Dakota. The first straw poll primary caucus is done. (Unless my friend was kidding, of course.)

Labels: politics, silliness

Hasn't everyone done something stupid once or twice or more? Something we devoutly hope no one ever finds out about? Something we try to bury under the floorboards of our memory, let alone almost manage to believe never happened in the first place? Sure. On the other hand, most of us aren't national politicians whose more or less every action is out there for press and public scrutiny. Whatever Idaho senator Craig did or didn't do in an airport men's room, or whatever he meant to do or didn't mean to do, certainly it was a bit creepy to some of us, or at least a bit distasteful. But isn't it the real point that he displayed such wildly bad judgment? What he did, or at any rate seemed to want to do, is one thing, but immediately pleading guilty and failing to seek and heed legal advice is what we might all do when we're hoping we can dive into the sand and wish things to just go away. For public officials, it doesn't happen like that and he sure as heck ought to have known that. He's been a tad too condemnatory all along anyway, so perhaps some of his constituents expected his behavior to be consistent with his stated stances. But his bad judgment would concern me far more.

Labels: politics, silliness

Having only recently become (only slightly) interested in baseball, I have to wonder aloud why it is that a player is a fair-haired darling of the owners and managers and fans when things are going well but then is the scourge of the earth and worthy to be tarred and feathered when there is a glitch in his performance. Case in point: Yankee pitcher Mike Mussina could do almost no wrong a few weeks ago and was being talked about in altogether glowing terms. Then he lost three games in a row and has been more or less benched ("will not be available out of the pen"). One sportscaster even said "he's probably pitched his last game as a Yankee". Doesn't that seem a tad harsh? Can't you have a slow time or need to rest your arm or something? I'm all for high standards and demanding top notch performance, but this seems silly. On the other hand, I haven't paid much attention to baseball before, so maybe I don't know the customs.

Labels: headlines, silliness, sports

Do you ever find yourself utterly bored with the things you've been reading on a daily basis - in the news and current events categories? Back when I didn't especially like my apartment, I would invariably channel this vague discomort into re-laying-out furniture. But I like my house now, and (most of) the furniture layouts, so that would be silly and unfortunate since I'd just have to move everything back where it was. So I need new input. There so few news sites and news papers. What to do, what to do? If any dear and/or rare readers have any suggestions, I'd be most appreciative.

Labels: headlines, reading

John Edwards, putative candidate for U.S. president, continues to startle and puzzle me with his inconsistent and hypocritical remarks. Recently he lambasted Hillary Clinton for taking money from Rupert Murdoch, although he himself had published a book for HarperCollins which is owned by Murdoch (more details here). And he keeps right on. First, he said Hillary should return money she received from a fugitive. (Once the news stories got hold of it, apparently she decided to toss the money but she gave it to charity rather than just return it; I suspect there's a bigger story there but the Clintons are masterful at sidestepping and burying stories so we'll almost certainly never get the rest of it.) Then Edwards said that "we" (which turns out to mean we unwashed masses, we ordinary folks just going about our lives) really have to be nice to the earth and use energy saving lightbulbs and stop driving SUVs, because we're all making such ghastly mean old nasty carbon footprints. But, wait! What does *he* drive? Oh, wow, gosh, golly. He drives an SUV! And where does he live? He lives in a just-slightly-smaller-than-thirty-thousand-square-foot-house and drives an SUV. Hmm. He has, on occasion, said that he makes no apologies for the large house because he worked hard to afford it. I suppose there's some similar "explanation" for the SUV (needs large car to transport many people comfortably, etc., etc.) And you know what? I agree. Totally. So how come it's okay for HIM to justify his carbon footprint but we're all supposed to throw our own rewards to the wind (pun intended)?

Labels: politics, silliness

Monday it was announced that Camilla, newish wife of Prince Charles of England, would not be attending the 10th anniversary memorial service for Diana. First of all, let me say that my own reaction when I heard that was "duh, gee, no kidding." I mean, what would have possessed the woman even to consider attending? (Who can forget the "squiggey tapes" and "three people in this marriage" after all?) I guess she's even more clueless and vapid than one might have imagined.

On Monday, musing Laura wrote about this, too, and had a similar reaction. The comments to her post were quite funny, including one saying that the writer never "got" the ideology of Diana (as I never did, either, I have to admit) and one about what children of Camilla and Charles would have looked like (a bit unkind, but true). While un-gentility is afoot, let me add that I watched the interview with the princes a few weeks ago and was somewhat startled to conclude that neither of them seems to have a lot going on. They're both ruggedly handsome, it goes almost without saying, but neither seemed able to form sentences nor suggest they'd thought about anything very seriously. Perhaps being incredibly rich and royal isn't good for people.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, reflections

Anyone have anything to recommend for photo management? I don't mean Flickr types of things because I use that for displays. I'm talking about how to organize on one's computer. I've used Picasa, but I find it a bit clunky and boring. It takes a fair amount of attention and work, although it's easy. There are things like SmugMug (too arcane) and Snapfish (too commercial) but I'd like one that was *just right* as Goldilocks might say. What about Sony's? Is the Vista "gallery" good? Any others?

Labels: family, photos

What's going on with all the silly and nasty pointless things that are being reported on the news? Are the wars on terror and/or in Iraq going so well that the only things left to mention are tidbits about Evil Knievel's son using his car as a murder weapon, Vick playing with and killing dogs, silly actresses spending almost no time in jail, actors maybe or maybe not trying to kill themselves, men getting gastric bypass surgery because adoption agencies won't let them have babies if they're that fat, a beauty pageant contestant loses her train of thought and sounds a tad out of it, and on and on. There's a lunar eclipse but apparently only a few people care, given the news. One thing I heard about is that another kid was suspended for drawing - drawing!! - a gun; he was suspended, not investigated or put into mandatory treatment or anything, just kicked out of school for a while; wouldn't that be more likely to make him and his parents actually angry and more likely to act out?? Anyway, I'm sick of silly news. How about you?

Labels: headlines, silliness

The festivities are completed. It was tiring but fun. My over-night company lives outside Washington DC and a neighbor called to say the power went off Saturday during some heavy thunderstorms. I'd have been a wreck but they took it all equanimously (is that a word?). Their power's back on, apparently, so all's well (I hope). Anyway, now I have to catch up on news and blogs....

Labels: about me, blogs (mine), family

Dutchess County Fair weekend. Many visiting family and friends. Computer readjustments, housework, food buying, socializing, entertaining, waiting for things and people, etc., etc. Hardly any time to get near the computer, let alone wax rhapsodic or attempt anything like perceptive remarks. Back Sunday evening. Have a terrific weekend and try not to miss me too too much.

Labels: about me, family, things to do

I'm a big fan of NetFlix but they've slowed down or become less diligent or in any case changed something about the way they process films. It used to be that when you returned a film, it was recorded the second it hit the mail, presumably through some kind of computer notification, and your next selection was sent almost that very millisecond. You'd send a film back one day and have a new film in your hands a mere two days later. But now it's almost a full week turnaround. Did the bad guys figure out how to get the postal code to indicate a film had been returned when it wasn't? All I know is that this is frustrating and it's hard to time things so you get what/when you want. For example, I sent three films back on Monday morning and they still haven't been registered as received/returned and it's Wednesday.

As for alternatives, Blockbuster doesn't carry the quirkier, foreign and not-shoot-em-up films I like and, besides, I swore I'd never go there again after they started editing films to remove things they found distasteful (yes, I'm afraid it's been documented that they do that) and after they pulled that overcharging scam for late returns. And my computer isn't fast or big enough to do downloads easily. Bottom line is that I'd prefer to stick with NetFlix, but I hate being manipulated and this is frustrating.

I remember hearing a rumor a while back that NetFlix deliberately slows things down for heavier users. Do they register a single returned film as son as it hits the post office but wait for physical returns when there's more than one? And although it seems idiotic to mistreat your best customers from a public relations point of view, it makes some dollars-and-cents sense. On the 3-films-at-once plan, if you get 9 films a month, it's $1.70+ each; 3 films is almost double that. Obviously customers having fewer films is better for them (unless customers stop renting at all, of course). Although when you multiply any amount times one or two gazillions of their customers, the numbers are enormous any way you cut it.

I wonder how to figure out if the slower turnaround is deliberate and/or how to "work" their processing.

Labels: about me, complaints, movies

What was that about global warming? Today is the coldest August day ever recorded in New York City (read all about it). I suppose the devout will say it might sometimes LOOK like cold but it's actually always warming. Right.

Labels: silliness, weather

Last week, Michelle Obama said this:

One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first. . . .

I have two things to say about this. One is to point out that one reason some of us respect and voted for GWB, as a matter of fact, is precisely his sharing of some (not all, at all) of our values. (I am not an intensely religious person, for example, but on the other hand I appreciate his commitment to and focus on his family and, perhaps even more important, his own counsel.) The other thing I want to say is that I keep thinking and believing that character matters, and I hope it does, but I'm not sure it really does.

Labels: celebrities

When blogs I check nearly every day go quiet for even a few days, I inevitably worry. Is he/she sick? Did something happen to someone in his/her family? Should I write and tell them they're on my mind? Silly, I know, but since one's acquaintance with bloggers is so personal - at the ends of one's fingers and often in pj's or even less, after all - it takes on enormous (not to mention overblown and undue) importance. Just saying.

Labels: blogs (others'), friends, reflections

One of my favorite bloggers and internet friends, spiced sass, is putting his blogging keyboard in its holster and bidding us farewell. I am not happy about that. He promises to visit and comment but it won't be the same. I'm going to try to figure out a way to lure him back. His observations are way too germane and perspicacious to do without for very long.

Labels: blogs (others'), farewells

Terrific and very interesting piece by Mark Steyn on, among other things, the reorganization of "hottest years" at the NASA website. Perhaps the skeptics among us aren't demons after all. Also check out his points about demonizing (nice segué, right?) Americans.

Labels: good ideas, silliness, weather, writing

One of those errands and putzing Sundays that are restful because they're different from the usual everyday day but aren't relaxing because there's too much to do. Actually, that's not fair. My life is pretty darn easy, rarely in an uproar, and I shouldn't sound as if I'm complaining. I have other neatenings and things to do now, though, so 'ta ta' and hope your day is pleasant and uneventful except in ways you wish it to be.

Labels: about me, things to do

Heavens to murgatroyde, you'd think that, for sure, the sky and heavens and anything else available were all about to fall in. As if we've never had hurricanes before. Or any other wild weather. I know they have all those hours to fill with chatter but surely they could do it with historical pieces or geography lessons or something else interesting and informative, if they want to stay more or less on subject, without having to make it sound as if the apocolypse is not only nigh and all kinds of doom just about upon us, but they are . . . right . . . here!

Labels: headlines, silliness, weather

My beading learning for today was tying knots. Definitely tricky. I know there's a tool that some people use but part of the reason I like this stuff is the hands-on-ness of it all, so I want to master the old fashioned way. I wish there were a Japanese jeweler nearby. I searched high and low on the internet for a perfect diagram or video instructions, but to no avail. Evidently, I just have to practice, practice, practice and maybe I'll get to Carnegie Hall there, nice snug little knots and all.

Labels: about me, beading

Very sad. They've decided to stop the searching, after some rescuers were killed and injured. It's entirely understandable and probably correct, ethically, but it's still very sad. If one of my family were in the mine, I'd be utterly miserable. Mining is fascinating and amazing, but so incredibly dangerous and scary. Remind me again: what's wrong with nuclear power?

Labels: headlines, reflections

Top Chef is often delightful to watch, in my opinion. Good food, lively personalities, crazy nutty people, competition, enviable kitchens, on and on. This week was odder than usual, however. In the quick round (which was not an elimination round even though it's touted as such), they were told to make awesome burgers. So no one made anything with hamburger. Sure. Salmon, mushrooms, etc., but no plain old hamburgers, which was supposed to be the point, for goodness sake. Trying to out-thinking instructions wouldn't seem the way to win anything, it seems to me, but what do I know. Anyway, in the long part, they were divided into two teams and had to conceive of a restaurant and prepare a dinner that was served to 30 people in each place. The reactions of the judges, who were among the guests, was the brass ring. But instead of amazing them, the contestants appalled everyone both with the restaurant designs and with the food. Apparently the food looked and tasted ghastly, in some instances, and one of the restaurants smelled so heavily of vanilla that it was off-putting. Plus, one server smelled, which must have been horrifying; I mean, can you imagine going to a gourmet meal and being greeted with body odor? In the end, the judges either have an agenda to which viewers and contestants aren't privy or just plain wimped out; they decided that everything was awful so they'd not send anyone home this week but they'll have to do the restaurant again next week. Properly, one devoutly hopes. Anyway, if any of this interests you, you should read the TV Guide blog about it, here; it's a riot, especially the imaginary conversation with a grab-him-off-the-street dinner guest.

Labels: food, ridiculousness, tv

It had to happen eventually, I suppose, although I was beginning to wonder if she'd discovered an elixir akin to Dorian Gray's painting. Brooke Astor made it to 105 but died on Monday, alas. There are several interesting pieces in the NY Sun, if you want to catch up on your reading about her.

She was particularly quotable, saying things like "Money is like manure, it should be spread around" and "People expect to see Mrs. Astor, not some dowdy old lady. I don't intend to disappoint them" by way of explaining her always fashionable appearance. If you don't know about her, reading her life story is like reading the history of the last century. The events (the Titanic, among others, figured importantly in her life), the monumental technological and social changes, not to mention the changes in what's considered proper for a woman both in and outside the home. Fascinating, personal and personable, urbane, witty, sharp, fashionable, on and on. . . . And, like me (ahem) she wore big comfy shawls long before the current trend.

Incidentally, the photo here (from one of the NY Sun articles) is when she was 85. Yes, 85. What genes she must have had. (And what clothing designers!) She and Kitty Carlisle Hart used to dye each other's hair, as recently as the 1990's, and loved to talk about how much fun they had doing it. Can you imagine?!

Last year, William Buckley wrote an article, also in the Sun, about Mrs. Astor's philanthropy and the battle wrought by her son and grandson. (About which I'll write, no doubt several times, but after her funeral on Friday. It's intriguing and, let's face it juicy, but it seems ungracious to dwell on it until a few moments and sufficient pause to pay our respects have passed.) Buckley succinctly wrote that "[s]he sent money everywhere, not least to blighted parts of the city where John Astor amassed the fortune that five generations later she was spiritedly dissipating. But in 1983 she resolved to train her energies and focus her philanthropy on the world of books." Which is why so many owe her a debt of enormous gratitude and appreciation. People like her are rare, and they leave a large black empty hole when they are gone.

Labels: celebrities, headlines, history

Apologies, but I am borrowing the NY Post's front page headline today about Don Imus and his maybe, rumored, dreaded (by some of us) come-back now that the suit has been settled. But I also have to say that if ABC really does hire him, I will never watch or listen to another thing on ABC again. Partly because it will thereby seem as if the whole thing was such a ridiculously loud exercise in self-promotion. But even more because if he displaces the awesome Curtis & Kuby, it would be unfair, despicable, mean, nasty, disgusting, and any other negative word you want to use. One report says "talks are underway" but another says that ABC has "no interest at all" so who knows. Better not happen, that's all I can say. C&K are the best - they're challenging without being crude, witty without being snotty intellectuals, funny without being nutty. To replace them with the idiotic, smug, nasty and (worst of all) unfunny Imus would really be a crime.

Labels: entertainment, headlines, ridiculousness

What's Elizabeth Edwards' problem? First Hillary, then Rudy, and now Obama. I have to assume she's devoted to her husband and really really really wants him to be president but I wish someone she trusted would tell her that the actual effect of all her little outbursts is to make people groan and moan. It's not that what she says isn't true and it's not that she's not perfectly within her free speech rights to say anything she wants. It's just that it makes her -- and by reflection, him -- look like a wacky emotional loony toon. I don't even necessarily disagree with anything she's said, it's just that I would think Teresa Heinz had deep-sixed the model of outspoken-campaigner's-wife once and for all.

Labels: headlines, politics

Report at Bottom Line Up Front.

Labels: blogs (others'), headlines

Read Don Surber's The Week That Was. Informative (in a way), pointed and downright funny.

Labels: blogs (others'), fun, writing

Thanks to Laura for her tribute to screenwriter/director/producer Mel Shavelson who has just died at age 90. A detailed obituary is here on the USC site. He taught screenwriting at USC for decades, stopping only just last year. He married his second wife five years ago (at 85!) after his first wife of an amazing 63 years had died in 2000.

Among his many (35!) produced and filmed screenplay are Houseboat, Yours Mine & Ours, The 7 Little Foys, I'll See You in My Dreams and Five Little Pennies (one of my all-time favorites and it turns out he won the Writers' Guild award for the screenplay, how about that?!). He also created and wrote the pilot for Make Room for Daddy and the theme song for Gilligan's Island on tv.

He directed many stars, including (but not only) Lucille Ball, Yul Brynner, James Cagney, Vittorio De Sica, Angie Dickinson, Kirk Douglas, Robert Duvall, Henry Fonda, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Barbara Harris, Charlton Heston, Bob Hope, Danny Kaye, Jack Lemmon, Sophia Loren, Paul Newman, Lee Remick, Frank Sinatra, John Wayne, and Joanne Woodward. Quite a list.

He had many stories about the actors and films, and must have been an extraordinarily entertaining and good teacher. I'm looking forward to checking out his autobiography, How to Succeed in Hollywood Without Really Trying: P.S.—You Can’t!, which was published on his 90th birthday. I wish one didn't discover such interesting people only when they leave us, don't you?

Labels: celebrities, getting older, writing

Don Surber made an almost off-hand comment today that I want to repeat so I don't forget it.

Those who preach the most about their liberty are the ones who lust most to take mine.

It was Franklin Roosevelt, an über-Democrat, who set up internment camps for civilian citizens. He is the only is the only U.S. president to have done so. Interesting and important to keep in mind.

Labels: politics, reflections

I already know he's articulate, open-minded and thoughtful. Now I know Tony Snow is remarkable and generous, too. As if he has nothing better to do than write (or oversee the writing of) thank-you notes to people who've written to wish him well. And not write perfunctorily, either, but musing on the unexpected and good effects that kindness brings to both giver and receiver. And yes, I realize words are his stock in trade but the feelings expressed make me feel that somehow I have received a gift. I've heard "send out good things, get back good things" before but this is wonderful evidence.

Labels: gwb, kindness

Bush causes all the big problems, so they say. Illegal aliens, poor voter mood, melting ice in the Arctic due to global warming and, of course, his own low approval rating largely due to the war in Iraq, just to name a recent few. I've been skeptical that he had such a long powerful arm, but a friend and I talked yesterday and now I see that he causes the problems and benefits from them. Cagey devil.

Aliens: Do you remember that Bush wanted a slightly unusual version of an immigration bill? Sort of an amnesty program, some said. Odd, right? Well, not when you realize it was the first piece of his summer plan. He had to hire lots of people who would willingly work really hard under uncomfortable conditions. He wanted to have them be legal workers but since no one would go along with his plan to legalize the immigrants, he had to hire lots of illegals. Global warming effects: The workers were sent in those huge transport planes that can hold tanks and planes and still look empty, to Greenland and the Arctic Circle. They melted huge chunks of ice (which the global warming followers saw and got frantic about). They poured the recovered water into space-age receptacles snagged from NASA (the receptacles use fancy schmancy technology to create condensed blocks of ice from water and will be used to get drinking water and irrigation plants on other planets). Then the frozen blocks were loaded onto the transport planes. Voter mood: The frozen blocks were flown to New York City and, under cover of night when so few observant people are around, they sliced open various streets and tunnels and deposited the blocks of ice in among pipes, drains and other subterranean what-nots underneath the streets. You may remember the explosion on 41st St. a couple of weeks ago; that was when one of the ice blocks slipped out of someone's (obviously incompetent) hands but fortunately that seems to have been the only thing that went awry. And, needless to say, the person with the careless hands has 'disappeared' which is why, disgruntled though he or she may be, nothing has come out about it. Results: All they had to do then was wait for some really heavy rain. It being August and the Northeast, that was bound to happen sooner rather than later, as it does every summer, but THIS TIME there was no room in the drains or in the space under the streets, so subway tracks flooded and chaos resulted. P.S.: Halliburton funded the enterprise, of course, paying excellent salaries to the workers, as well as their families, and supplying all the equipment.

So. Has anyone talked about Iraq the last week or so? Are people hanging in there, working and getting through, together? Has the President's approval rating gone up? I rest my case.

Labels: headlines, reflections, silliness

It's happy 111th birthday to Jean Piaget whose writings excited me as much as anyone else's about children and learning (though I can't overlook Winnicott or Dr. Spock, among others). His descriptions and theories of how and when we develop cognitively are enthralling, not to mention helpful, as one interacts with children. And as to how one approaches learning and teaching oneself and others. His example of understanding how a liquid occupies two completely different sized drinking glasses was an "aha!" moment for me. He was one of the first respected social scientists to encourage recognizing the amazing things children can do if one notes and then capitalizes on their stages. Silly, for example, to expect an infant to stack blocks or Legos in any organized way since any familiarity of gravity and shapes is not there yet. But wonderful to discuss abstract ideas with a toddler who is observing and organizing the world both literally and conceptually.

Labels: good ideas, reflections

Weird morning, weather-wise, in NYC what with a tornado in Brooklyn and Bay Ridge, torrents of rain, flooded subways, slow commuter railroads. . . . but not as catastrophic as some are saying. Read this from a man who has studied weather for years and knows it well. Especially note the part about how earth isn't "striking back" or trying to rid itself of an infectious disease, namely human beings.

Labels: blogs (others'), weather

I thought this was an April Fool's joke, somehow out of place in August's humid mid-summer heat. But no. Apparently "bad" cops in Bangkok, defined as those who break rules, will have to don armbands that display Hello Kitty. Although some might think this sounds silly or even funny or charming, it is suggested that Thai policemen will feel great shame at wearing the little cutie. (Hey, I'll be glad to wear one.) Incidentally, in case you're wondering, apparently the horrendously offensive behaviors include littering, parking in a prohibited area and arriving late. (Lousy miserable miscreants.) And there is some relief, by the way, in that punished armband-wearing officers won't have to wear the armbands in public. (Thank goodness.) What would the New York equivalent be, do you suppose?

Labels: headlines, huh?, silliness

Please, someone explain to me why the subways and trains have become so much less able to handle rain this last year. There's been heavy rain before (can you say hurricane?) and sometimes even torrential rain, but the subways didn't get flooded every time. Out in the ex-urbs and sub-urbs, part of the explanation is that new houses are equipped with built-in sump pumps and dehumidifiers that send water back out to the surrounding lawns and fields, leaving them unable to absorb much more when it rains. Okay, that explains new housing developments and maybe even a bit of the newly high water table in small towns. But it doesn't explain New York City where individuals aren't building mcmansions with sump pumps, for heaven's sake. Is it all about infrastructure become less and less resilient? Is the core of the earth becoming saturated for some reason and, as a consequence, the space and dirt between the core and the cities has less room (yes, I know that's ridiculous)? I'm sure GWB caused this, or maybe Kevin Bacon, but basically I'd like to understand what really has happened.

P.S. Check out this new contest - for those of you who are enjoying (wrong word) the debate about global warming.

Labels: headlines, weather

How cool. Virgin Airlines is starting a truly fabulous thing on August 29th. Inexpensive flights between the coasts, and with all kinds of their usual fun features. Movies, tv, games, etc. $139 from SF to NY ($129 to DC), only $200 more to first class with movies, massages and food. How awesome is that? Sometimes a free market does itself proud.

Labels: headlines, travel

I'm a big big fan of Daily Candy which, if you don't know it, is a perky and entertaining information service that tells readers about fashion, food, events, hotels, travel, services of many kinds, and just plain fun. Devotees check the website or, more likely, receive daily announcements about the city/cities of their choosing. There are separate dailies on New York City, DC, Boston, Paris, London, L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta. Anyway, it's often stuff you'd never ever scope out on your own and is often really fantastic. I totally recommend signing up.

My quibble, however, is that when they show designers or shops that sell handbags, more than anything else, the prices are absolutely insane. The other day they had a place that was having a supposed "blow out" sale. All excited, I went to look and nearly fell off my keyboard. The lowest price was $385. For a handbag. And today, there's a designer handbag site. One-of-a-kind (which made me leery). The lowest price I saw before I fainted dead away was $650. And that wasn't a tote, by the way, just a fairly normal size bag. Come on, Daily Candy, get real.

Labels: huh?, shopping

Just discovered Across the Pond thanks to Frenchless in France (a favorite of mine). I'll be spending more time there but for now, I am soaking up the wonderful photos in this fantastic post on England's southwest coast, one of my absolutely favorite places on earth.

Labels: blogs (others'), U.K.

John Baker currently has a series of posts on putting words together, contributed by several writers including the unfortunately-no-longer-writing Winston Churchill. Quite worth a visit.

Labels: blogs (others'), writing

Have you seen the new and improved New York Times? It's weird. Just a tad smaller but enough to (supposedly) save several million dollars and make it feel really odd in your hands. I keep hearing that the Times is in trouble and advertising revenue is down, etc., etc., blah, blah. When will they acknowledge and accept that their reporting is so skewed that fewer people want to take the time to deal with it. Me, for example. I love the special sections. Love them. Escapes, Circuits, Dining, Home, Arts, Science . . . but I can't stand the dead bodies on the front page nearly every day nor their relentless criticize-America news coverage. A friend of mine says it's all been downhill for them since they stopped printing their excellent TV guide insert, and he has a point. It was fantastic, the only printed guide that worked. But it's gone. And now they've raised the price by 20% and shrunk the paper size. It's all just too much (back of hand melodramatically pressed to forehead). I can usually snag a copy of the day's special section(s) on the train but that doesn't satisfy my crossword puzzle craving (and no other paper has as good crosswords, I have to admit). I thought about subscribing to the crossword puzzle, which is something they offer - just the puzzle - but would you believe they charge $40 a year JUST for the puzzle. Brother. Anyway, honey, sadly, I'm betting they'll be shrinking even more things about the Times soon.

Labels: headlines, reflections, writing

Oh goody. I got three spam comments over night. What the heck do people do it for, do you suppose?

Labels: blogs (mine), huh?

Today I've had almost no luck publishing posts. Sometimes Blogger eats my post unless I remember to Ctrl+a and save the text in Word, then save the post as a draft, then publish the draft post. A tad tedious and round-about. Plus, I've had enormous delays after clicking "publish post" and either the post hasn't displayed or I got one of those dreaded Bx error messages. Is anyone else having the same problem?

Labels: blogs (mine), writing

Some people have done it - blamed the Bridge of San Luis Minneapolis's collapse on George. But of course. Put the blame on Mame George, boys, put the blame on Mame George.

Labels: gwb, headlines, huh?, ridiculousness

On my way to a beading class this morning, I heard an amusing (well, maybe not) story about John Edwards. I definitely think he's on the convince-everyone-I'm-a-complete-idiot campaign plan, so it seems a shame to waste his time and ours, but I guess that's the nature of the beast. Apparently he came forward sometime in the last day or two to demand that Hillary return some donations to her campaign that from Rupert Murdoch. Edwards obviously loathes Murdoch (remember how he refused to take part in a televised debate because Murdoch's Fox was the broadcaster?). Aside from that fairly pointless waste of his energy, however, it's also hypocritical to a degree that's impossible to quantify.

The same guy who demands so self-righteously that Hillary keep her campaign free from this loathsome lucre last year published a book called Home that was published by guess who. HarperCollins. Okay, now guess who owns HarperCollins. You got it! The very same Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox and who donated to Hillary's campaign (which oddity is another subject altogether). So the North Carolinian master of gigantic jury awards, which raise their own serious ethical dilemma, published a book and was paid by and accepted an enormous advance from HarperCollins (three-quarters of a million dollars). Yes, he said he would donate profits of the book to charity but note the word "profits". But, first, keep in mind that his daughter and his assistant were paid, presumably from the "income" from HarperCollins and not from his own (ever so pure) pocket. But, also, be real: there would be many expenses (you know, mundane little things like distribution, publicity, electricity, postage, haircuts, etc.)? And has anyone actually bought the book? Have there actually been any profits? And, most important of all, how come he thinks he can get away with such a blatant display of how little he thinks of American voters that he thinks we'll neither notice nor care about bald-faced hypocrisy and outright lying?

Labels: headlines, huh?, politics

Listening to and watching reports of the collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul, I was reminded of one of my favorite books, Thornton Wilder's The Bridge of San Luis Rey. If you haven't read it, you should not pass Go but immediately grab a copy and read it. It's one of those books that takes hold of you from the very beginning with a famous opening line ("On Friday noon, July the twentieth, 1714, the finest bridge in all Peru broke and precipitated five travelers into the gulf below"). And it won the Pulitzer Prize in 1928.

The essence of The Bridge of San Luis Rey is a meditation on the meaning of life and love cloaked in a gripping story. The 1714 collapse really happened, just like the 2007 collapse in Minnesota, and Wilder posits an observer of the bridge's collapse who writes about his horror that so many people are be killed instantly and, perhaps more intriguingly, together. The book also leads us to wonder if there is any reason for their deaths, in a spiritual or cosmic sense. I wish I were a journalist in Minneapolis. Maybe I should find one and suggest this as a way to write about the people on the I-35W Bridge at 6:07 p.m. on August 1, 2007.

Anyway, back to Minnesota. Alan of Fresh Bilge, who knows the area well, wrote something fascinating. He said he "wouldn’t be surprised if other collapses hit the Twin Cities. They use far too much road salt during the long Minnesota winters: it rots out the cars, and eventually even steel girders give way. It’s time for local authorities to cut back the chemicals and rely more on old fashioned sand." Not to mention that apparently the bridge was ruled "structurally deficient" in 2005 but not retrofitted in whatever way would have been needed. What the heck is wrong with people? Does "deficient" mean "okay" in any dictionary? Will it be less expensive to pay lawsuits than it would have been to fix the deficiencies? I think not.

Labels: headlines, reflections, writing

Greetings. It's August 1st. A new month. One month short of my third blogiversary, incredibly.

I had a lovely extended weekend. We didn't do much in the way of exciting things but did lots of relaxing and chatting and playing. (I introduced them to Ruckus, which is a surprisingly fun card game that all ages (really truly) can play.) Sunday we had a nice, long, chatty brunch in Georgetown with my brother and my new sister-in-law. Monday, my son and his wife went to work and their daughter went to school and I had the day to myself. I got a pedicure and manicure at a modern, pleasant place that had a flat-screen tv, among other amenities, and then I wandered to some bookstores and did a bunch of what my mother called window shopping. Truly a vacation. I drove 861 miles altogether!

The world seems to have continued turning, despite my absence from paying attention. I'll be sure to observe and make remarks, soon.

Labels: blogs (mine), family, fun