A disturbing and fascinating comparison here.  If you are even considering voting in November and if you want as much information about the candidates as possible and given that McCain is 72 and has said he will/may only serve one term, it is truly a must read.  (h/t Laura)

Labels: 2008 election, good people, politics

"....[I]f Palin holds her own against Biden, as she is fully capable of doing? McCain will then have succeeded in combining with his own huge advantage in experience and judgment, a politician of great promise in his vice presidential slot who will make Joe Biden look like a tiresome relic. McCain's willingness to take a chance on Palin could turn what looked, after Obama's impressive speech Thursday night in Denver, like a long two months for Republicans and conservatives, into a campaign of excitement and--dare we say it?--hope, which will culminate on November 4 in victory." (from Bill Kristol's "Let Palin be Palin" in today's Weekly Standard)

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, writing

We need to keep something about political campaigns in mind:  very little that candidates promise to do or not to do is what they actually do and don't do when they're elected.

Labels: 2008 election

A Reuters article quotes Obama's campaign spokesperson Bill Burton as saying "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency" which gives rise to two questions and a quibble:

1. McCain hasn't put Palin in the job that's "a heartbeat away from the presidency" since votes won't be cast for over two months - he's proposed her for the nomination for candidacy for the job (actually, neither of them is officially a candidate until the convention next week says so, but that's another quibble, isn't it?). Is Obama unwittingly conceding? There are always all those undercurrent rumors about democrats' drive to fail; maybe this is freudian-slippery proof of them.

2. It's a grammatical quibble but it's not the town that has zero foreign policy experience. Burton needs to keep on top of stuff like participial clauses so people don't start thinking his boss isn't quite the blindingly eloquent wordsmith after all.

3. It is true that Palin has "zero foreign policy experience." On the other hand, Obama has zero foreign policy experience, too, so it seems awfully risky for him to talk about Palin's inexperience especially considering that he's the one at the top of the ticket and she's second. It's most unwise for him to alert people to his own shortcomings in that regard and, more or less, to point voters to the realization that both his opponent's v.p. candidate and he have approximately the same number of years of job experience (14), his in service (organizer, laywer, state legislator, senator) and hers in management (city council member, mayor, ethics committee chair, governor).

And to think I was concerned that the campaign was going to be boring.

Labels: 2008 election, writing

Anyone else notice that "palin" is an anagram for "plain"? (IS she tall?) I love that story and the slow evolution of its characters from hardnosed, intransigent and wary to considerate, understanding and trusting. I doubt there's a parallel to draw between Patricia MacLachlan's character and the gov. of Alaska, but it's amusing to think about.

I must say that I think choosing Palin speaks well to McCain's not being as stodgy and same-old same-old as I feared. It also means he's reading the electorate cleverly, I think, as well as having a desire to effect actual change of his own. Yeah, sure, it's stealing some of the democrats' thunder (woman, change, etc.) but it's also putting a governor in the mix (all three other candidates are senators) and stealing thunder is part of the game, isn't it? Not to mention that if he gets elected and if his administration does well, in eight years a woman will be likely to become president. Goodness. And in the clips I've watched of her online, she seemed real (not phony), sincere, able to handle herself with the press, and good with presenting and structuring a speech to go where she wanted it to go.

McCain's ad congratulating Obama was generous, gracious and smart. I guess he's swinging into action. Their new slogan is "Reform - Prosperity - Peace" which pretty much covers the whole kit and kaboodle assuming you believe they mean it and believe they can do it.

Palin is a basketball champ, a runner, a moose hunter, a former fisherman, the mother of five (!), is married to an Eskimo, she's bucked backroom politics and won't be boxed into doing what she disagrees with, if what I read is true. Given Alaska's importance in the all-important energy issue as well as her apparently non-doctrinaire opinions, she might be compelling. In fact I would think she's cool except that she's supposedly both anti abortion and pro death penalty which is an inconsistent pairing that never makes logical sense to me. That aside, however, I think the election is a real horse race now because there are many democrats who say they might vote for McCain and there's that +/-28% of Hillary's supporters who say they will not vote for Obama under any circumstances.

It's not as if the veep has much to say about things unless the president specifically assigns him/her to something (although Cheney is repudiated to have run things but who knows if that's true). Maybe McCain would give Palin real authority over some matters of substance - that would be great at least from some points of view. Anyway, at present it's not as if the veep makes much of a real difference but - hesitantly - I'd venture to say that if the election were held today, McCain would win although by a narrow margin. What do you think?

Update. A friend who watched Palin's speech a few minutes ago wrote me, "I'll tell you one thing, this woman is a good public speaker. She doesn't need any sessions with media consultants. She just gave a better speech from a technical standpoint than any I've ever heard Hillary give. She also seems like a real person. Maybe all the things she said about herself are lies, but I doubt it. I may not agree with her about anything . . . but she doesn't seem like a phony. . . ."

Labels: 2008 election, government, gwb

Correlative to fooling some of the people some of the time and all of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time, apparently everyone thinks there is something which it is valid to keep secret from some people. And something that is validly withheld from pretty much everyone. Yet current common wisdom has it that it's reprehensible when a president keeps some knowledge and activities secret. Nevertheless and meanwhile, praise and admiration abound from media and bloggers alike that McCain and his camp have succeeded so well and so thoroughly in keeping his v.p. choice secret right up to the last minute. Go figure.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

Somehow the last day of the democratic convention seemed overblown and false to me even though I am totally gratified by the country’s growth from hosing black children in 1964 to nominating one for president in 2008. It is moving to know that nations can change so profoundly for the better. (One hopes we can't move similarly for the worse, of course.)

As for Obama’s supposedly powerful and amazing speechifying, last night he left me fairly cold. I'm not sure why. Perhaps my cynicism is increasing in direct proportion to the nearness of election day? Also, there seems to be only a 6 point jump in the polls - not that polls mean anything anyway especially in this charged and endless campaign. But if that’s the biggest bounce the dems get after all the physical and verbal fireworks, then I think they're unlikely to win in November.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections

H/T Daily Candy: Stop getting useless phone directories at home and/or office. The internet is almost always better. Well, okay, not always but if you want to: online at yellowpagesgoesgreen.org.

Labels: good ideas, shopping

When Thompson and Guiliani entered the Republican group of presidential candidates, I thought it was going to be a heckuva good year for speeches what with two people who can punch up decent rhetoric and get you excited about what they're saying in the process. Or so I thought. Unfortunately, about two seconds into it, they faded faster than last night's late night movie credits. Rudy never campaigned anywhere, not for real anyway, and Thompson went into "uh er dunno" mode before you could say welcome to the fray. I wondered if they were slipped overdoses of prozac or something, ostensibly to keep them from shooting off but really to guarantee McCain getting the nom. I'm a conspiracy theorist, given half a chance, and those two sure gave me reason to believe.

Then along came 11D blogging about the Dem convention. Last night she was watching Bill's speech (she described him as having "charm and a twinkle" - good to know he hasn't lost his stocks in trade - and convincingly making "a case for Obama" and even getting her to "slightly forget some of the slime ball comments that he's made in the past nine months") when along came John Kerry. Like me, you may have very nearly forgotten Kerry - he was the Democrat who ran for the presidency four years ago and would have won if he'd had even an ounce of oomph or substance on account of many voters supposedly loathing the incumbent GWB. Kerry was riveting last night, which goes toward explaining how he got the nomination - always a puzzlement - and partly gave rise to this from 11D:

Now why didn't Kerry give a speech like that four years ago? He was very good tonight, while he was boring and hesitant when he was running for office. It shows you how the presidential process really wrecks havoc on the mind. When you have a staff and polling data pulling you in different directions, it really takes the steam out of a good candidate.

Maybe that explains Thompson and Guiliani. And does it mean that the guy will win who can hold on and not sink under the strain? If so, I wonder which one will be crushed....

Labels: 2008 election, people

1.  The glassy surface on the Hudson River between incoming and outgoing tides is so startling even though we see it fairly often.  Trees and structures on the other side of the river are reflected like a painting or like that fantastic K-Mart advertisement after 9-11 that showed the towers as reflections in the river . . . but absent from the shoreline.

2.  In the elevator this morning an office acquaintance asked if I had any new photos of t2cgitw and when I said yes she got off at my floor to come look at them.  Generous interest in others is rare and surprising and appreciated.  I must learn to do it more because I am actually interested but often worry that it will annoy people when, in fact, I know quite the opposite from my own experience.

3.  Sitting on my front porch on my slatted porch swing on a sunny day, looking at the bright green leaves and the blue sky beyond, waving at people as they walked by and waved and smiled. . . .

(H/T Kellogg Bloggin')

Labels: blogs (others'), people, places

. . . but I'm going out on a limb and predicting Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate. I have no real reason for it except that no one else feels right. All of which presupposes my feelings have anything to do with anything especially considering that I was sure Obama would pick someone unusual. Anyway, that's my bet. But don't tell anyone.

Update - Thursday midday. A friend sent me a note that Intrade, "the political prediction market", says that "While Romney is the most actively traded market in volume terms (2,122 lots traded and price of 45.0), other leading contenders are Pawlenty (494 lots and price of 24.2 ), Tom Ridge (1,153 at 11.5), and Meg Whitman (195 at 8.5)." On the other hand, some wise (or not) guy added a sentence to Pawlenty's Wikipedia saying "On August 29, 2008, Senator John McCain will announce that Pawlenty is to be his Vice Presidential running mate." Update - Thursday night. Sentence about Pawlenty is gone. Palin's page has a notation about no one being allowed to edit it. Hmm. . . .

Labels: 2008 election, government, people, reflections

I think it's accurate to say that Laura had significant and substantial misgivings about Obama from the outset. I did not. I was caught up. Willingly and with great hope and with only a tiny bit of wariness. I was excited by the prospect of an America president who would encourage and lead us politically and emotionally to be regain the upbeat and positive character that we have at the core of our national self. Perhaps I am an eternal and therefore cockeyed optimist, who knows.

So I was startled and interested that Laura wrote this post this morning in which she expresses alarm similar to mine earlier today resulting from seeing the ridiculous Grecian set being built for Obama's acceptance-of-nomination speech. And then, as I clicked around other sites, I learned that his seat on his airplane is festooned with his name and "president 08" which sure seems a tad premature. And I saw posters that are springing up all over the place that show raised hands forming a big O between two hands using thumbs as the bottom and the rest of the fingers to complete the circle and sun-like radii emanating from the O. Aside from the absurb deification, this kind of overly dramatic political art alarms me because it was used to such (infamous) effect in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

I guess the podium-with-presidential seal incident didn't teach him that Americans aren't fond of people who take themselves too seriously. I think, for example, that one reason celebrities are so attended to in the U.S. is that they are patently unserious. I am baffled that a man who sold himself to an excited and welcoming electorate as being of and for the greater good of mankind could be blowing his apparent cover even before he's actually got the brass ring in his hand.

If he meant the common man stuff, the pomp and drama are completely inappropriate and out of place and whoever is making him do it should be stopped immediately. If he really wants to be chancellor or emperor or something, then he is out of place and should be stopped immediately. Or is this just his version of Clinton's neediness, i.e. the effect of a father leaving a son and causing a permanent wound that even national attention cannot heal?

Labels: 2008 election, family, people, silliness

Thanks to Norm for linking to these extraordinary 39 photos.  They are too marvelous to resist linking to them here as well.  No wonder it was the most watched Olympics.

Labels: blogs (others'), photos, sports

Apparently I'm not the only one to observe what seems to be a sad slow demise of "the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution." Maureen Dowd has noticed too, as she writes today from the Democrats' convention. I wonder if there wasn't anything new or if we the people were so eager for something new that we grabbed onto it, transference-like but also mistakenly. I'm beginning to wonder if Obama is just another empty pair of pants and rolled-up white shirtsleeves.

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments

Things are going from good to unclear to bad to worse.  If this were a negative source I would be willing to doubt it but ABC is fairly reliable about Obama and this sort of thing.  It seems that Obama is going to rise up on a platform at the 50-yard line and be standing in something resembling a Greek portico.  The cheesy symbolism is bad enough but the man of the people, by the people and for the people seems to have evaporated awfully quickly, doesn't he?

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments, people

Sometimes The Onion is like a college paper written by kids who crave attention. Sometimes they hit a nail right on its sarcastic and/or ironic and hilarious head. This is just such a time!

Labels: fun

A relative whose intelligence and opinion I respect in these matters tells me that he thinks Biden is a superb, wonderful, magnificent choice. He thinks Biden is someone who should have run for and perhaps won the presidency long before now. He promises further details but I wanted to ameliorate my previously negative remarks with this, for the record. Now I am confused and unsure and will have to look into it further but I certainly feel better about the choice than I did.

Labels: 2008 election, optimism

The weekend was full of family and friends.  Going to the county fair together, a big birthday party for two, lots of children running and playing, etc., etc.  A lot of the time and the things we did were tons of fun and wonderful! 

I don't like to get too personal here but suffice it also to say that some of the time was difficult.  One day before I move over to the great beyond I would like to sort out why some people seem deliberate in their desire to be unpleasant, or at least not deliberate in an attempt to be pleasant.  Life is too short to waste time offending each other, isn't it?  Even if it isn't always exactly how we feel?  What is gained by being hurtful even if it expresses how we feel at that moment?  Is complete bluntness worth the sadness and confusion left in its wake?  As a commenter on a recent post about In Plain Sight said, "In reality, the villains in our lives are the people who confuse and emotionally manipulate, abuse or neglect us--not gun toting psychopaths."

Labels: family, reflections, tv

Not sure.  Read this and add your thoughts, please.  I mean, we've all had friends who did things we would never do.  So is it part of Obama's wholecloth or beside the point?

I am definitely puzzled as to what might be so "wrong" with the ad or with the American Issues Project that both Fox and CNN will not run the ad.  When was the last time they agreed so thoroughly?

Labels: 2008 election, questions

The goof balls are out - surprise - although I'll admit that it is weird how much the two names Obama and Biden overlap the infamous guy's. But check out what's displayed after aligning the letters.

"B.S. 'n L A" presumably reveals the quality of the juxtaposition as well as it's possible source.

Labels: 2008 election, juxtapositions, ridiculousness

The choice of Biden simply baffles me. Obama's urge to change things in the government, to shake things up, to start us all on a new course towards wonderfulness are simply put to the complete lie by chosing Biden.  The man is the most inside-the-beltway and political crony you could find short of a Kennedy.  He's been there since right after law school.  In the Washington Post Chris Cillizza wrote

Picking Biden, who has served in the Senate for the better part of the last four decades, seems to run counter to that core message. Biden was elected to the Senate at age 29 and spent only four years after graduating from Syracuse Law School in 1968 working in the private sector before entering public life. . . .  [He] has long been a regular on the Sunday talk show circuit and is one of the pillars of the Democratic party establishment. His accomplishments . . . all were achieved as a senator operating inside the deepest heart of political Washington.

Another article in the Post praised Biden for his foreign policy knowledge ("For Obama, whose only obvious weakness in the race is his light foreign policy resume, Biden would provide an immediate boost and badly complicate John McCain's attempts to paint the Illinois senator as ill-prepared to represent the United States on the world stage").  Even if true, it seems to me that his intellectual and personality quirks and liabilities overwhelm his strengths.  His attitude toward women, for example, is on the surface terrific but then you discover narratives like this.  Whew.

There's the "regular guy" aspect of all this - something I've mentioned and thought about vis a vis George Bush - often referred to as the likeability factor.  The fact that "Biden is the kind of guy most voters can imagine themselves having a beer (or, heck, a boilermaker) with" is lovely but those millions who loathe Bush should be running from this measure as fast as their little feet can carry them. Unless, of course, their loathing is really based on some other personality quirk, not anything about policy.

He's also defensive about his own education and intelligence, quick to make weird remarks about things that are irrelevant to a topic.  During confirmation hearings he often rambles on about himself rather than probing the candidate.  He made a couple of famously puzzling comments about Pakistanis and 7-11 stores.  During Alito's confirmation hearing he rambled on about Dianne Feinstein's glasses at one point.  He also said he'd never ever ever ever take the vice presidential position.  Hmm..... 

During the primaries, Biden stated fervantly that Obama would be a poor choice because the presidency is not a place for training on the job.  Now he's eager to support Obama as his second in command?

Bottom line, he's just too nutty and odd to be anything but a liability as the partner of a candidate who has plenty of people wary of him already.

Labels: 2008 election, people, politics

Apparently Obama's v.p. selection is Joe Biden.  I am dismayed.  He is part of the insider crony crowd, he's loose-lipped and can fly off the handle much as John McCain is reputed to do.  He ran for president and did so poorly in the primaries that it's unlikely most people remember his candidacy.  He's unappealing and seems to me to add absolutely nothing except politics as usual to the ticket.  If McCain chooses someone even halfway inspired, this may prove to be Obama's undoing.

What happened to "change" and "excitement" and "yes we can"?!

Labels: 2008 election, disappointments

I haven't seen many lawn signs for the '08 election yet but today I saw three - not one or two but three - and they were all for "Barr '08" proclaimed in very large distinctive letters.  I confess that I thought they were some kind of odd nickname for Barack until I saw this article featured on Newser.  Given the extremely small sample, perhaps I shouldn't make too much of this but it might mean something interesting.  Should we start paying more or at least as much attention to Bob Barr as was paid to Ross Perot?!

Labels: 2008 election, current events

I've been listening to one of Joan Anderson's books in my car.  (Cds are a pleasant alternative to music or talk, by the way though that's a subject for another day.) I'm not sure what I think.  She's got some wonderful ideas but also a tone of smugness that's annoying and alarming.  Some of what she suggests is undoubtedly useful and I've even done a fair number of the exercises and processes on my own.  But you get the feeling that she's saying if women would isolate themselves and discover their own needs then everything else would fall into place.  I don't mean to challenge her but other people are involved in people's lives and we cannot control them at all.  Sometimes they don't respond as we'd like, even if we're entirely centered and calm.  Obviously the effect of someone being non-responsive or antagonistic is very different if one's own center is calm and clear, but that doesn't seem quite what she's saying.  Then again, maybe I'm just resisting.  I must say spending a weekend, month or year in a cottage on Cape Cod sounds like heaven although few of us have the financial wherewithal.  Have any rare readers experienced her books/workshops and, if so, what do you think?

Labels: books, women, writing

I kind of like the new posts banner when composing, but spell check seems to have gone by the wayside.  I'm a brilliant speller of course (not) but I'd still to have the computer's assistance therewith.  Any ideas other than composing in Word or Notepad and copying into Blogger which is a tad cumbersom?

Labels: blogs (mine)

It's Fair week again! Yay!!

One of my friends has gone to it every year since he moved
to the area, almost forty years ago. It's a total obsession
with many people - the turkey sandwiches, the cows and
sheep, the bunny pavilion, the poultry building, the old farm
implements, the petting zoo, the funnel cakes, etc., etc.

The Dutchess County Fair does in fact have a reputation as
one of the best county fairs in the country. It's superb if you
like these kinds of things. My kids and their kids come to
the Fair every year even though sometimes Johnny forgets
to buy them blue ribbons (heh).

Labels: places, things to do

There's a thoughtful and, I think, accurate piece by Joan Walsh at Salon on what was essentially a sandbagging endured by Obama at Rick Warren's Saddleback interview. I've been puzzling over it for two days because Warren seemed so rational and calm and his stated goal of respectful disagreement is such a good one: no vitriol, no spewing hatred, just listen and take it from there.

What I hadn't been able to process or understand was what felt like a drubbing. The questions were thoughtful but many were religious with a tone along the lines of when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife in that you kind of knew that if Obama didn't answer the way they wanted then he was going to be labeled problematic. Indeed, Warren asked a question that Obama answered by saying he believes women do have the right to choose abortion - although he also stated clearly that he doesn't not mean to say he thinks it's a good idea - and he also said he does not support late term abortion (contrary to what his attackers say). But McCain jumped right on the Christian-right lap with that one by saying sonorously that "life begins at conception" and getting a cheer for his efforts. However, McCain has voted for and vocally supports stem cell research yet Warren never asked about that.

And speaking of Warren, his supposedly haloed good guy self should be taking a hit among his followers but for some reason it's not. He said clearly that both candidates would be asked the same questions and that neither would hear the other's answers until after the interviews were over. Yet even a casual listen to the questions reveals that they were not asked identical questions. Furthermore McCain seemed to know the questions because he didn't pause to think or consider his answers but had obviously prepared comebacks for everything. A couple of days ago, optimist that I am, I interpreted that as being because the questions were mostly to be expected, but Walsh notes that McCain was not in the building when the Obama interview began and therefore Warren's guaranteed and much ballyooed "cone of silence" could not have been effectuated. What does that mean for all the pontificating about honesty and integrity?

In an interview about the interviews, afterwards, Warren was asked what he thought about Obama's and McCain's different views about abortion and how he thought their views would impact the choices of evangelicals in November. First he said that "I would not predict how evangelicals are going to vote. I will tell you they're not monolith. That's a big myth. They're going to make up their minds based on the hierarchy of their values." Okay, good.

Then he said, "many evangelicals, of course, ... believe that life begins at conception [and] if they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to vote for a Holocaust denier..."

What astonishingly twisted and maze-like reasoning is that? And, aside from the ghastly mixing and muddled matching of idea, isn't it incendiary and appalling? How, exactly, does this kind of language do anything other than ignite and fan flames of anger and mistrust? And, hey, what happened to "no vitriol" and "listen and disagree with respect"?

When Warren asked whether they thought evil existed, I was excited. It's a superb question and discussing evil could have led to a discussion of child-rearing, poverty, urban problems, race relations and a host of other important issues. Obama addressed the question in a thoughtful answer without flinging policy or pre-canned paragraphs at us. McCain didn't answer at all, just jumped right on the familiar bandwagon, frowned and asserted he'd annihalate Osama bin Laden. I'd like not to think he said "Osama bin Laden" so alarmists could connect the similarity to Obama's name. But I have to think that he chose not to (or couldn't) answer the philosophical question in a philosophical way.

We have a wonderful and forceful and good country in many ways but we also have many difficult problems in America. To focus on only one is to shortchange the electorate and to diminish one's chances of having thoughtful leadership.

Labels: 2008 election

I will be disappointed if Obama picks Joe Biden or Sam Nunn or any of the others I've heard mentioned so far.  If he just goes for the regular guys how does that help change things?  I realize that he's got to get elected before he can do anything but sheesh.  I'm not really saying this but maybe Hillary wouldn't be such a bad idea.  They'd be the two strongest vote-getters in the party and they'd almost certainly win in November.  I guess there'd be problems about governing (oh that) because of who really held the power and because of her husband but it's tempting....  I really really really hope he's been so creative as to come up with someone no one expected at all.

Labels: 2008 election

Today is Fred Thompson's 66th birthday. Wouldn't it be a nice birthday present to us voters if he were McCain's running mate? Okay, okay, I know it won't happen and that McCain is going to pick one of the expected, safe, obvious, usual suspects, but it would be so nice.

Labels: 2008 election, good people

In 2004 Natalie Coughlin won 5 medals in 5 events in the Athens summer Olympics.  In 2008 she won 6 medals in 6 events in the Beijing summer Olympics. In other words: 2 olympics - 4 years -  11 events - 11 medals (one medal per each olympics event). Why aren't TV, newspapers and the internet all over her fantastic achievement?  She's an astonishing athlete with amazing olympics achievements. Does being a woman make her accomplishment less impressive? How about just as impressive!

Michael Phelps is superb, as we know, but Coughlin is, too, and should be earning tons of press and praise.

• Phelps, 23 — swam 17 times in 9 days in heats, semi-finals and finals;
  he swam in 5 individual events and 3 relays - 8 events in all;
  he won 8 medals
• Coughlin, 26 — swam 14 times in 9 days in heats, semi-finals and finals;
  she swam in 3 individual events and 3 relays - 6 events in all;
  she won 6 medals
  

And she's "just a girl" (l.o.l. as they say). Would it in any way diminish his achievement to acknowledge hers?!

It may violate some unwritten code (I hope not) but I'm including the paragraph that brought all this to my attention. It's by Rachel Larimore writing at Slate's xx Factor. I'm including it verbatim because I agree with it completely and because, swimming fanatic though I am, I confess that I didn't know either and that upsets me. I'm mad at NBC, first and foremost, but also with myself for not knowing about it:

If there was anything that disappointed me about the Olympics swimming coverage, it's that Natalie Coughlin's own remarkable feat—winning six medals in six events for the U.S. women—went comparably unnoticed by NBC's commentators. Granted, her haul of one gold, two silvers, and three bronzes wasn't as impressive as Phelps', but she swam an ambitious program and has never finished out of the medals in 11 Olympic events (she also swam in 2004). (Emphasis added.)

As The Daily Breeze put it, "the winner of the most medals both in Beijing and four years ago in Athens is no surprise. But do you know who was second? Some hints: It's the same runner-up in 2004 and 2008. And it's a woman. She's from the United States. She's a swimmer, like Michael Phelps. No [not] Katie Hoff, who gets a lot of attention but doesn't have many medals to show for it."

Katie Hoff was the darling of the Beijing commentators. She'd won no medals in Athens when she swam there at 15 but she's only 19 now so could have two more Olympics if she wants them. This time she swam 4 individual and 2 relay events for which she won 3 medals (one silver and two bronze), no mean feat but nothing like what Coughlin accomplished.

So major and enormous congratulations to Natalie Coughlin! We need to arouse righteous indignation and lots of praise and get NBC to back up and give lots of praise where it's due. Phelps won 11 medals between the two Olympics - and so did Coughlin. He is 23, she is 26. He is a physiological phenom, she is lithe nut nothing like a "human dolphin." It's horrible that in 2008 her amazing feat has garnered almost no recognition so I'm doing my part. She is an extraordinary athlete. She is the first woman to win back-to-back Olympic gold in the 100m backstroke. And she is the first U.S. woman swimmer to win six medals in one Olympics - and she won 11 medals between the two Olympics, never failing to win at least bronze - one short of the record for a woman athlete.

Labels: sports, tv

It was an interesting two hours, far quieter and more reflective than most of what we'll see before the election (or afterwards, most likely). It's doubtful than anyone's mind was changed but perhaps it served to focus some of the reasons people support Obama or McCain.  Rick Warren, he of the huge best seller "Purpose-Driven Life" which Ashley Smith used so brilliantly three years ago in that hideous face-off with Brian Nichols (read my take on that unusual incident if you're interested), hosted Obama and McCain for a values intererview, if you will.  The idea was to ask questions about moral and philosophical outlook. Questions like "what was your greatest moral failing" and "what do you think is the best and the worst in America at the moment."

I thought McCain seemed kind of punchy and a bit odd in his delivery but maybe that's just him and I haven't seen longish interviews with him before.  He generally spouted campaign statements he's rehearsed and said before even if they didn't quite fit the question.  A few people have observed that McCain seemed to know the questions, but I think (hope) that was mostly because the topics and questions were what a church audience would want to know and therefore would be familiar to McCain, more so than to Obama. McCain was essentially speaking to his base or at least to a base that he hopes will vote for him, given the size of the religious "bloc" and their impact on elections in the U.S. at present.  I thought that Obama seemed to be considering the questions and answering in a thoughtful tone and I found his comments interesting.

The moral integrity issue is being discussed all over the place today, as McCain acknowledged his greatest moral failing as his treatment of his first wife, but I'm puzzled by the adulation he nevertheless garners because of his observance of the "code of conduct" as a prisoner of war. Why is one so much more important than the other?  And (don't yell at me for asking this) how is it relevant that at one time he was a very decent soldeir when at another time he was a deceptive and dishonest husband?

Ironically, Warren is viewed with skepticism by many of the so-called religious right because he supposedly has some liberal viewpoints. One of his greatest strengths, as he displayed in his introduction last night, is his passion for civility and calmness in discourse among people who may differ and disagree.  Given the enormous differences between this year's candidates, if he could convince extremists on the right, perhaps others could convince extremists on the left and all of here in the wide middle will benefit.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, tv

Awesome. Amazing. Dara Torres is 41 years old, twenty years older than most of her fellow Olympians, and a mother who managed to win two silvers at this Olympics, one by that ridiculously small margin of .01 of a second (less than two inches). Bolt is the Jamaican who cruised the 100m sprint in 9.69 and won looking as if he was just in a practice (probably the point of all those practices, come to think of it). Lezak (see my post on him earlier this week), 10 years older than Phelps, is amazing and under-hyped, a superb swimmer and team-mate without whom Phelps' medal count might have been smaller and indeed Phelps has paid him much credit. And there's Phelps himself, of course, who physically and mentally handled everything both smooth and not so smooth (grabbing the wall at the end of the fly instead of letting it slip away, enduring nasty remarks by rivals, being unable to see in one race because of slipped goggles, etc.), 17 races in 9 days (heats plus finals) and, on top of it all, cracking 7 world records in the process.

Phelps' butterfly stroke is mesmerizing - strong and beautiful.  I must pay tribute to my daughter's butterfly, too, however, every bit as amazing as his. Yes I'm prejudiced but others who saw her fly said so, too.  (And her high school fastest time still holds, years later.  Who's a proud mom?!)   I felt happy for Phelps' mother tonight, I must say.  All those early morning practices, hurried dinners, rushed homework, weekends full of chlorine and humidity atop uncomfortable metal bleachers and cheering on all the other age-group swimmers. It was gracious and very sweet of M.P. to publicly acknowledge his mother's part in his success when he climbed over the photogs to give her his bouquet and his 8-medal plaque.

As many (tired) people have said, this is a particularly exciting Olympics.

Labels: good people, sports, tv

I have some thoughts about the social equalization of the world. This on the heels of friends visiting a prominent person at the company where I work.  The visitors are from somewhere in Europe (I couldn't quite decipher the accents) and were dressed in skimpy bra-showing tank tops and skinny slacks/tights (the girls), and ill-fitting shirts and slacks (the boys). Yet here they were at my firm, long reputed to be a bastion of good taste and erudition, perfectly acceptably going around and meeting people without anyone looking askance or covering their eyes.

My point is that all the crappy ways we attire ourselves these days have definitely aided in equalizing social levels and made it so high mucky-mucks aren't visibly any different from low mucky-mucks. I think it's a good thing, honest I do, I just wish we all looked better when our bra straps were showing.  You know what I mean?

Labels: modern culture, reflections

Any rare readers, please gather lots of kind thoughts, prayers, best wishes, whatever you can, and send them to Kate. Life often doles out more than we think we can bear but she's really having to cope with too much at the moment. Our collected energy might help a little.

Labels: blogs (others'), friends

HIllary's tanks are poised and ready, waiting on the outskirts of Denver. The invasion is ready. Oh, wait, I might have my stories mixed up. Might. Might not.

Apparently Obama has agreed that Hillary's name be placed in nomination and that she be included in the roll call vote. One hopes Obama has a plan, a/k/a/ knows what he's doing. He did manage his campaign brilliantly well after all. But what would prevent her supporters from demanding that the delegates (super and otherwise) support Hillary and / or that Obama choose her for vice-president? I'm sure there are conventions (heh) about delegates' commitment to their states' results but I doubt if they're legally enforceable.

I have to say I just keep shaking my head and saying "what was he thinking?". I am concerned about this acquiescence to the Clintons. Yes, it is respectful and even reasonable that the convention reflect what actually occurred so that the historical record show clearly that a woman received significant numbers of primary votes. That Hillary won a sizable number of votes. But one must keep in mind that this is the Clintons we're talking about, people not exactly known for their calm adherence to logic or agreements. Witness Bill's diatribes during the campaign (arguably responsible for her loss) and Hillary's handling of any number of things including her campaign (whose mismanagement disappointed many who were initially supportive of her candidacy, sufficiently that they became disillusioned). Is further proof needed as to why Hillary should not be Obama's (or anyone's) veep? He would have to spend at least half his time holding her off, not governing.

As for tanks, does anyone remember the 1968 convention? The lesson from that dreadful time 40 years ago is that it really is possible for chaos to reign absolutely and utterly supreme. I suspect an invasion is underway but maybe I'm wrong. my fingers are crossed and I promise to try to trust fairness and optimism.

P.S. Read this amusing take from Slate's Henneberger. Similar skepticism but much funnier than me.

Labels: 2008 election, reflections, tv

(How come the NY Post hasn't used "Georgia on my mind" for a headline? If I've thought of it, for sure they have. Does it sound disrespectful? I don't mean it to. Also, I've put this aside in George typeface just to amuse myself and any other typeface fans. Ah the advantages of being under (over? behind? in front of?) the msm radar.)

Charles Krauthammer has a detailed and reasonable article at Real Clear Politics on the so-called cease fire and what he thinks can be done non-militarily to improve things. All based on the idea that "We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake." I continue to disagree with people, including him, who think Bush should have bolted from the Olympics when all this happened (I wrote about my reasoning yesterday) but I very much like his suggestion that the other seven members of the current G8 should withdraw on the grounds that Putin has defiled his legitimacy there. Krauthammer says the G7 should then be reformed and that Russia and/or its future permutation forever disallowed. I'm an eternal optimist and believe it is possible that Russia could become democratic but maybe I'm mistaken; it's completely irrelevant what I think anyway since I don't get any influence on it at all.

In a related matter, two little girls who were visiting their grandparents in Georgia (the Baltic one, not the U.S. east coast one) for the summer are apparently unable to return home because of the difficulties there at present. The parents appeared on a morning news show today. Why can't the girls leave? Are the borders locked down? Are things worse there than we have been told?

Labels: places, politics, ridiculousness, tv

They're very exciting to watch, the Olympics, and I swore I was going to resist watching this year. Silly me. I think they're being better covered than usual, too, with less ridiculousness than last time (you know: heart-string pulling, "human interest" stories instead of showing events). The schedule is here though it's not etched in stone for the most part.

Labels: sports, tv

I'm puzzled about everyone's reaction to the Russian / Georgian crisis. Not because of whatever the sovereignty issues are - those are serious and interesting but not the point for the moment - but because I don't understand the general tone of expectations about what the U.S. should do about it. I hear and read the U.S. government being chastised for not sending troops nor being publicly tough or loud about reprimanding Russia.

Is the real point simply that George Bush is always wrong? Betsy, with whom I often agree, wrote about Bush's "initially weak response to the Russian invasion of Georgia." He did criticize Russia's actions immediately in both a news conference and several interviews (I heard him). Can you imagine the outcry if Bush had sent troops immediately? And there wouldn't have been any point in sending humanitarian aid (which we are now sending) before knowing what's needed.

Betsy and others criticized also Bush for "enjoying some Olympics fun while Russian tanks rolled through Georgia" which seems awfully unfair. Everyone was yelling and screaming that he must go to the Olympics and support U.S. athletes. So I have to believe that if he'd run right out and scold the Russians with threats of troops or with actual troops, he'd have created a very distracting-from-the-Olympics incident which would have detracted very much from the athletes. Plus, it was entirely apparent he was doing diplomacy with both the Chinese and Putin, in person, since they were all there too. I'm quite sure we have no way of knowing or assessing what he was really doing or saying and to whom.

Back in the day Bush determined that Al Quaeda was being supported in Iraq and that therefore it would be possible to undermine the terrorists by sending troops and attacking them in Iraq. Only history will be able to judge that thought process and its correctness or incorrectness but many deemed it very wrong. This week Bush determined that the U.S. has no legal or moral standing to get militarily involved in a dispute between Russia and George and therefore that we had to exercise restraint and not send troops to Georgia and not even get involved immediately so they could sort it out themselves but many deemed that very wrong.

Involved then - bad . . . involved now - good. Why? It's not as if Saddam Hussein was a good guy to Putin's and Medvedev's bad guys; they're all varying degrees of totalitarians leaders of sovereign states and who the heck are we to intervene unless authoritatively requested or unless our own sovereignty is in jeopardy?

Our involvement in Iraq had at least a small - albeit very small - claim to justification by way of the explicit U.N. sanctions which Hussein flagrantly ignored. There is no such factual reason for us to become physically involved in Georgia. Wouldn't it simply be evangelism in the extreme?

Labels: places, reflections, warfare

The theme of this Olympics' opening ceremonies was "Children are the nation's flowers" but apparently that was true only for children who met the cuteness requirements of the ceremony's music designer, Chen Qigang.

Every blogger and news outlet in the world should display this 7-year-old girl's picture front and center. Yang Peiyi sang the opening ceremony song but her face wasn't shown. Another little girl stood in her place and lip-synched because Yang Peiyi wasn't allowed to be on camera because some Chen Qigang deemed her insufficiently telegenic for the opening ceremonies. He is said to be pleased because he believes he had both "a perfect voice [and] a perfect image."

All of which demonstrates (again) the rigid and misguided control being exerted over the appearance of this Olympics. The purpose is said to be to ensure that China is "seen at its best." But it's both offensive and ridiculous to think that a real 7-year-old with a beautiful voice is anything other than China's best. And how does China "look" anything other than its worst when it makes a move like this? It's particularly ridiculous when you consider that the whole raison d'être of the Olympics is to honor and praise not superficial appearance but extraordinary performance.

Labels: reflections, ridiculousness, sports, tv

The French coach Claude Faquet was gracious: "I am neither shocked nor disappointed," he said even though his foursome had been expected to win right up to the last .08 second. "[Jazon Lezak] is a swimmer with a huge amount of experience and he swam intelligently. As far as I'm concerned, it is not [we] who lost but the Americans who won."

The American coach Eddie Reese glowed: "There's never been [an anchor swim like that] in my memory. . . . Not running down somebody who holds the world record, who's on their game. That was incredible. ... It has to be in the unbelievable category. That's the biggest word I know."

The German coach Orjan Madsen was incredulous: "The whole thing was . . .one of those moments where you just sit back and say. . .if I [hadn't] seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have believed it."

32-year-old Jason Lezak is a strong, thoughtful and amazing guy. He "figured this was one opportunity in all my career" so when he "flipped at the 50, it really crossed my mind for a split second that there was no way. Then I changed. And I said, 'You know what, that's ridiculous at the Olympics. I'm here for the United States of America. I don't care how bad it hurts or whatever.' ... Honestly in five seconds I was thinking all these things. I got like a supercharge and took it from there." A fantastic moment that I'm really really glad I saw.

Labels: good people, sports, tv

Does anyone have a good, flexible and workable program or add-on for Outlook 2007?

Labels: computers, technology

Read Maureen Dowd's column on all this. It's not just sarcastic but funny (no surprise there) and insightful.

Both Edwardses (is that the plural?) have remarked that the source for the information about his affair is a lying scumbag piece of tabloid paper. They imply and pretty much state that therefore no one should regard what they say as true. Except that what they said about this was true. What am I missing?

Labels: 2008 election, people, reflections, writing

Further ruminations. I agree with all the very modern, hip and mature (ahem) people who say and probably mean that it doesn't matter to them/me whether anyone is having a sexual relationship with anyone else. I mean, it's pretty much the personal concerns of the people involved. (Unless, of course, it's someone in my own family and someone I love is getting hurt, in which case it matters a great deal.) But if a candidate puts it out that the issues that really matter to him and because of which he should be judged better than the others - all things that Edwards said over and over again, just by the way - are things like honesty and loyalty and so-called family values, and then he turns out to have flaunted them him (or her) self, well then it's pure and simple hypocrisy, isn't it? And there's another issue and that's the potential for being manipulated, blackmailed or (merely) influenced by the people who know but are inside the veil of secrecy (h/t/ Laura). And it would seem to me that someone who gets even a small thrill out of the excitement of an illicit extramarital relationship would be particularly susceptible to dangerous pressures and influence under such circumstances, as hokey and cold war as that may sound. Just saying.

Labels: 2008 election, modern culture, reflections

• An error in judgment???  He betrayed his family's trust and he lied, a lot.  How is that like choosing brands of string beans or butter?
• He says he didn't love Rielle Hunter.  How does that make it better?  How will that play with Hunter?
• He says Elizabeth's illness was in remission when he had the affair with Hunter.  How does that help?
• He says the affair has been "over for a long time."  (a) How does that help given the egregiousness of his lying and (b) are we really supposed to believe it's been over a long time when he was seen and photographed coming out of Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton two weeks ago?
• He says he's not the father of Hunter's baby; he says Andrew Young is the father.  Huh?!  Was Hunter the campaign's night-time groupie??  How many people in Edwards' campaign did she sleep with?  Is she following the troops?  Are we really supposed to believe this?? 
• He says he doesn't know who's been paying Hunter or covering her hotel bills around the country.  One's credulity is strained.  And anyway, why does she stay in hotels instead of her own house or apartment?
• If Young is the father and the affair is long over, why was John Edwards visiting Hunter's room in the Beverly Hills Hilton just two weeks ago?
• Edwards says he'll take a paternity test.  Risky challenge, that.  Remember Gary Hart's "follow me" invitation?

What's the relevance of all this to anyone other than the Edwards family?  I suppose a candidate might be an intelligent, careful and socially concerned legislator even though a cad.  I suppose a person's personal life is just as legislatively irrelevant as whether one *likes* a person one is voting for.  But trust is delicate in personal relationships and, whether it makes a ton of sense of not, is a component of how one evaluates who to vote for.  In this case, it's not the affair, it's the condescension, the assertions of family and traditional values. 

It all comes down to arrogance and an assumption that one can do something not even close to what one asserts is being done, all the while adamantly asserting moral rectitude, all the while insisting one is doing only what one insists one is doing, and all the while denying doing what is actually being done.

Labels: 2008 election, outrageousness

If Edwards were not a Democrat, the rumors of his affair would have been plastered all over newspapers and cable television since 2007 at least.  I suppose respect for Elizabeth Edwards informs some of the press's reluctance to cover this, but far less important public figures have had their flaws and "errors in judgment" trumpeted loud and wide.  In this day and age, in the post-internet age of ubiquitous curiosity and camera phones, it is impossible to hide.  But if media have agendas, the playing field becomes muddy and bumpy.

Labels: media, reflections

Interesting, thoughtful and fairly serious interview with David Thewlis here.  Love his quote of Billy Bragg's retake on a Philip Larkin "thing about the enemy of the artist [being] the pram in the hall."

His view of that was he didn't believe it at all. He's got several children and loves it and finds it inspiring. He gave me a poem he wrote that was a pastiche of Larkin's "They f*** you up, your mum and dad". He changed it to "They tuck you up, your mum and dad" and rewrote every line to make it a positive, loving, parental poem. It was a beautiful thing.

He and Billy Bragg are right: you can make/take time to be both an artist and a parent.

Labels: good ideas, good people, tv, writing

In Los Angeles, a wonder-of-wonder has occurred.  A bookstore has closed . . . because it's moving down the block and getting more space and more books.  Check out this story!  I've long been of the opinion that bookstores that do not have snobby attitudes and that do have specialized stock or knowledge can thrive even in this nutty time.  There are dozens of stores proving my point in and around Washington DC (of all places) and even a few in Dutchess and Ulster counties in New York.  I know there are many stories of bookstores that close and attribute the problem to B&N or WalMart or Sam's Club or some other monolithic monster.  But I really feel certain that if DC can support bookstores, other communities can do it.  If all the commuters I see reading every day are at all representative of the world at large, then books and printed matter aren't nosediving, they're just changing delivery methodologies or something like that.  So three cheers to Skylight Books - hurrah and congratulations to them!!

Labels: books, good ideas, whining

In case you didn't think there was something online about absolutely anything you can think of, there is a toaster museum.  It's a well-designed website and actually fun and interesting to visit, in case you thought you knew everything about toasters.  Or (foolishly) didn't know there was more to know.

Labels: fun, modern culture, websites

These paper dolls are the perfect ending to the day that began with Paris Hilton's presidential ad and her plan for energy reform. Wow. I don't know if they're the best thing to happen in this election season and I am completely sure they won't contribute to a more serious and intellectual discussion of the issues we need to consider when deciding who to vote for in November, but (second perhaps to Paris' ad) they're the most plain and simple fun we'll have the whole time!

Labels: 2008 election, fun, modern culture

If you haven't seen the whole thing, do. It's, like, totally worth watching. Enjoy!

You've got to give Paris a ton of credit for doing this and for its wit. Apparently Chris Henchy (Brooke Shields' husband) produced it - don't know if he wrote it, too but whoever did deserves a minor Emmy. And, um, her energy plan? it has merit. Hmm.... Paris for vice president....???

Labels: 2008 election, fun, tv

Laura who muses is back from vacation (making my reading day much happier, with apologies for such a self-centered remark), and she reports that San Francisco's mayor, he of Kimberly Guilfoyle and gay marriages fame, has proposed that the City monitor people's garbage in order to be sure it is being sorted correctly. New York's Mayor Bloomberg has cracked down on notoriously appalling behaviors such as smoking and making lots of partying noise outside bars and taverns, honking too often in traffic, trans-fats, and so on. Aside from issues such as freedom even to harm oneself, many of his targets are so subjective that it's impossible to know how one measures "ok" vs. "sanctionable."

Meanwhile, some other cities seem to be jumping on this wave. Canton (Ohio) and Poughkeepsie (NY),for example, have new city ordinances that threaten homeowners with fines that increase from $250 to $1000 for insufficiently short grass. One wonders what the job description looks like of the person who has the responsibility of measuring the glass. And talk about subjective!

Did I miss noticing that these cities have all become crime-free and dirtless and perfect from a quality-of-life standpoint?? Because, here's the thing: if there are still murders and burglaries and robberies, if there are still rodents biting children and landlords who fail to make basic repairs to plumbing and heat, if there are still inequities in hiring practices and courtroom proceedings, then these procedures are not merely foolish but actually out of line and downright unethical and wrong.

Labels: modern culture, ranting, ridiculousness

I have no personal use for a kennel in northern New Jersey, having neither a dog nor a residence anywhere near there, but Highland Kennels is apparently one of Color Addict's web clients. It's a nice website - informative and fun to look around. A kick just to look at the pictures. If I had a dog and lived in the area and wanted to let my dog go to a playgroup, I'd definitely go there.

Labels: blogs (others'), web design, websites

The blog What Kate's Reading is worth a stop now and then even if you don't want to join in on her giveaway of a copy of a Jude Devereux book. But if you do, better get cracking since the deadline is this Friday. Meanwhile, it's a fun exercise to consider who is (are?) your favorite flawed hero?? And a corollary question: who are flawed heroines and are they as much fun??!

Labels: blogs (others'), books, fun

It's a lovely summer afternoon here in the northeast.  I am happy to report that I mowed this morning without passing out because the humidity wasn't over six thousand percent (who uses hyperbole, who?).  I cleaned my front and back porches and they're (more or less) dust-free and inviting.  It would be a perfect time to be outside in pleasant fresh air while reading or pondering the mysteries of life and the passage of time.  But, alas, it is not to be.  Nearby neighborhood kids are screeching and running all over the place so we who want a quiet afternoon in the shade of our lawns, trees and landscaping are prohibited from sitting on our porches and reveling in our porch swings' rhythmic assurances that life and time continue to meander along no matter what.

Labels: about me, children, modern culture

Color Addict - who definitely is a major and serious cat devotee - displayed this conversation between two cats today.  Which is well complemented by the all-cat version here.  And which suggets that cats can talk perfectly clearly, it's just that we misguided humans don't always understand very well.

As follow-up, watch this one to see what another cat thinks of the first conversation.  It's all the funnier since many cats don't seem to be able to see tv but this one clearly does and clearly likes what (s)he sees.

Labels: blogs (others'), cats, fun, youtube

The blogs listed here in the lefthand column are ungettable-to today because of an I.E. abort error that started last night and altogether prevents reading. A clue is a long long pause when you click on the url.

These blogs are getting the I.E. abort error. Do they use Site Meter? If so, Site Meter might be the problem. Barb the Evil Genius Dadvocate Dustbury Music and Cats Penniless in Paris Semicolon Small World Reads Texas Scribbler Wide Awake Café

These blogs are not getting the I.E. abort error. Do they use Site Meter? If so, Site Meter isn't the problem. Color Addict I am a Cheeseburger Laura's Musing Present Simple Regular Life Seablogger Spiced Sass

Apparently Seablogger was advised that Site Meter was causing the problem so Alan removed S.M. and his blog works fine now. But since everyone was fine yesterday (which I know personally because I did in fact visit) it's puzzling what happened. Why would S.M. suddenly be incompatible with sites that used it all along. Did Site Meter or I.E. change something on August 1st? I can't switch to Firefox since I've had major security problems with Firefox but I also want to be able to read my faves.

Update: Site Meter has apparently fixed their update so it plays nice with I.E.7 again. Whew.

Labels: blogs (others'), web design

There's a nice post at Color Addict on a restaurant that sounds really delicious (Applewood in Brooklyn) but it's the remark at the end of the piece that I reacted most strongly to. I am a big believer in the pendulum theory of the universe whereby extremes are an important and necessary part of progress. I no longer get wild about things that I hate to see politically or socially because wait a while and things will go back the other way, probably too far on that side. In the end, in the long run, things will balance out and another subject will take center stage. I don't mean to sound laissez faire or as if I don't care, just that I have a sense of patience and forbearance that I didn't have when I didn't recognize there are big pictures about many things.

Labels: about me, modern culture, reflections