HVAC*: Heated Ventings and Commentary

2002-04-02T08:25:00.000-08:00

This site has moved: I have moved the site to a new, ad-free server. You can find it at http://www.whiterose.org/amy/blog/. Please change your bookmarks, and come visit the new site!

2002-04-01T15:01:00.000-08:00

It's going to be a bit quiet... I'm in the process of moving this site over to Moveable Type on a new server. While I'm in the middle of that work, I won't do much posting here, because that would just be more stuff to convert. Watch this space for an announcement of its new location.

2002-04-01T08:01:00.000-08:00

Pilgrimage to the family homestead: Carlos and I went to Pratt, Kansas, for the 3-day weekend to visit with my father's family. It was a very relaxing, enjoyable trip to the heartland of America, punctuated by lessons in family history. All in all, a good trip.

One of the things I always find fascinating about visiting this side of my family tree is that, as much of a big city girl as I am, it's sometimes a bit startling to remember that half of my family heritage is squarely planted in a farm. Pratt, the town where my grandmother and aunt now live, is the "big city" next to the farming area they've lived and worked in for the last century. Pratt has a population of about 6500. The town my grandmother and father grew up in, Byers, has a population of 50. No, I didn't make a typo there and leave off some zeros. 50. As in half of one hundred. My grandmother lived there in a house by herself until about 15 years ago. At the age of 80, she and her baby sister, 6 years her junior, moved to "the city", buying the house in Pratt they've shared since then. Now at 96 and 90, respectively, they still live in the same house. The farm land they own is being farmed and managed by other members of the family.

While we were out there, we went to visit my cousin Dean. (Well, okay, he's my dad's cousin, so he's my first cousin once removed. But who's counting?) He manages probably the largest of the family farms, as well as most of my grandmother's land. He is a wonderful, textbook image of "farmer". He's obviously a man who has done manual labor for his entire life. He's got the leathery, sunburned skin, the rough hands, and the squint that says he's spent many hours in the seat of a tractor looking into the sun. He's also one of the sweetest, gentlest souls I've ever had the pleasure to know. And for all of his complaints about the hard work and his aging body, he clearly loves what he does with his life. When we arrived at his house, he immediately took us on a huge tour of the farm. We saw the tractors, the combines, the planting machinery. He explained how the irrigation sprinklers worked. (This explanation, including how the motor in them makes them "walk" around a circle of land in a 3-5 day period, included a hilarious story about a neighbor who'd left his pickup truck parked on his land while the sprinklers were going. The huge irrigation sprinkler walked right over the truck, crushing it and flooding it. Dean said, quite matter of factly, "That's not a mistake a man makes twice." Indeed.)

As part of the tour, we also got to visit the cattle and horses. During this tour, it became clear to me that the idea of being vegetarian is an entirely alien concept to a cattle rancher like Dean. I'm not even sure what made him ask me if I was vegetarian. But when I affirmed that yes, I was, he said, "Well, that's not real good for the cattle business." I guess not. I was pleased to see that at least the kind of cattle farming he does is the small, family-run farm type. The cows were in large enclosed areas, with plenty of room to move around. Dean obviously treated them very well - up to the step where they get sent to a slaughterhouse. But if there's one thing I've learned in my time as a vegetarian, having a discussion about any of that with him was not only a waste of time, it would also be hugely insulting to him. And as much as I hate the cattle and meat-packing industries, I wouldn't hurt Dean's feelings for the world. He was raised the way he was raised, and nothing I could say would change that. So why bother? The funniest part of all this came when Dean and his wife Kay took us out for lunch after the tour of the farm. We went to Pizza Hut, where Dean ordered a taco pizza with taco meat on it. He offered me a piece, and said, "This is as close as you get to something without meat in it around here. Why don't you try it?" I guess to him, if it's not a steak or a burger, it's not "meat". "Oh, those little crumbles of beef there? That ain't meat." It was sort of sweet. I think he really wanted me to try something he thought I would like. I managed to gracefully decline.

One of the best parts of the trip was going up in my dad's Cessna for an aerial tour of the area. My dad started out in the air force, and then flew commercial flights for Continental Airlines for 39 years. He still flies small planes, and he and my stepmother own a 4 seater, single engine Cessna. It was parked out at the Pratt airport. He took Carlos and me out there for a tour of the area. We saw all of Pratt, Byers, and the family farm from the air. Carlos took a panoramic camera with him, and tried to get good pictures from the air. I really hope the pictures turn out. I'd love to send Dean a picture of his entire farm to thank him for the lovely tour.

One of the things Pratt has developed over the last few years is a fairly amazing historical museum. Now, when my dad told me we needed to go see this, I was skeptical. I mean, how good could a museum located in a town with 6500 people in the middle of a fairly culturally dry area be? The answer is - pretty amazing. They have done a wonderful job with this museum of presenting a history of the area. Instead of just displays with stuff, they've set up mock main street type areas, with little stores and displays showing what rooms in a house looked like at the turn of the century, or what a dentist's office or drug store looked like when the town was founded. The neatest thing about it was that, since my family has been around since about the time the town was founded, I kept finding things all over the museum that had belonged to my family. The best items were:

In the section of the museum where they listed the town citizens who'd fought in various wars, they had displays of military uniforms over the years. One of them was a Korean War era fighter pilot flight suit, complete with oxygen helmet. It was displayed on a mannequin in a museum case. The best part? The name stitched onto the chest was my dad's. (Funny moment: My stepmother looked at the uniform and said, "Wow, were you that skinny once?")

In one room, they had a music display, with different kinds of musical instruments, and a display of different TV's and stereos and record players. One of the musical instruments was an accordian my grandfather used to play.

In the Main Street display, they had an old fashioned post office, with the old style mail boxes. These mailboxes came from the Byers post office, where my aunt was the postmaster for 20 years, and her name was on the display.

One of the things Kansas is the most proud of was their role in the development of the B-29 bomber - the plane that was used in WWII to end the war with Japan, both through general bombing exercises, and the dropping of the two atomic bombs. One of the air fields used to develop the planes and train the pilots was the Pratt air field. My great-grandmother was one of the women who worked in the manufacturing side of things. She was a parts supervisor. Seeing her as part of that made me pretty proud.

One of the old John Deere tractors on display was a 1920's model that was used by my grandfather and my uncle Herman on their farms. It was donated to the museum by my cousin Dean.

There were many other things throughout the museum either donated by my family, or listing my family as being part of the town's history. It was really neat to see all of that. I definitely would like to go back and visit that museum again some day. This time, I'll remember to take my camera.

All in all, it was a fabulous trip. It was good to see my grandmother feeling as well as she did, considering just a few weeks ago she had a massive heart attack and stayed in the ICU for a week. Considering that, and her age, it was amazing to see her at ALL, much less in her own home, looking as well as she did when I saw her over a year ago - if not better. We spent several hours going through old photographs and talking about the family. That alone made it worth the trip. Sometimes, getting in touch with your roots is a cleansing, uplifting experience. This certainly was.

2002-03-28T11:56:00.000-08:00

Heading out of town: The hubby and I are headed for a three day weekend in Kansas. Yes, I said Kansas. It's pretty flat, and there's not much to do, but I get lots of sleep on my trips there. Besides, I get to see my amazingly cool 96 years old grandmother and her 90 year-old "baby sister". So no news from me for a few days. Enjoy the silence!

2002-03-28T10:15:00.000-08:00

May our karma run over Osama's dogma: I wish I could claim credit for that wonderful title, but it comes from the Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece here, about Buddhism and pacifism in the post September 11th world. Interesting piece. (May require registration to read.)

2002-03-28T09:58:00.000-08:00

Wow, I almost missed it: Apparently March has been National Women's History Month, and I didn't even know. (Bad feminist. No cookie.) But I did find this sweet cartoon today that sort of sums it all up.

It's good to stay aware of history, and to look at how far we've come. (No, I'm not talking about a Virginia Slims ad.) Sometimes I find being a woman frustrating. And more and more, I notice that I just can't stand most advertising. It tends to be so sexist. (Cleaning product commericals are almost all women, for instance.) But sometimes it's good to celebrate the good things.

2002-03-28T07:08:00.000-08:00

A more detailed story: Thanks to Instapundit for pointing out this great article chronicling the stories of the passengers of Flight 93, the flight that went down in Pennsylvania on September 11th. It's a very moving tribute to the passengers, and a very chilling account of the details. It's the most detailed account I've seen of any of the events yet. Most chilling is this passage:

The night before boarding Flight 93, in their hotel rooms, Jarrah would have opened a list of instructions, kept in a notebook that apparently was written by his old friend Atta.

It instructed them to bathe, wear cologne, shave excess hair from their bodies and check the knives they carried.

"You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter," it read.

I still have a hard time even beginning to comprehend how someone can see the deaths of innocent people as a productive way to accomplish anything. I was watching the news this morning, and heard more about the suicide bomber in Israel yesterday. I couldn't understand how someone could see this as a good means of accomplishing any kind of goal. But this passage from the article, in which those killed are referred to as animals for slaughter, brings it into some kind of perspective. To know that these horrible human beings didn't even view us as members of the same human race explains how they could be so cruel. Now I'm simply left to ponder how someone could come to believe such a thing.

2002-03-28T06:55:00.000-08:00

The wisdom of children: On Sunday, Carlos and I went to see a children's theater production of "Oliver". Our friends Heather and Scott were playing Nancy and Fagan (respectively), and it promised to be a good show. It was indeed. Especially Heather and Scott. They are both so talented, and so charming on stage. Every time they came out, they just lit up the stage. And Heather was so heart breakingly beautiful in her role as the abused, but still loving, Nancy.

For those who don't know the show, Nancy is in love with a man named Bill Sykes - for no apparent reason. He's a belittling, bullying, awful awful man. He treats her horribly, and in the end kills her. And yet, twice in the show, she sings this beautfiul song called, "As Long as He Needs Me," which basically says she doesn't know WHY she loves him, she just does, and she always will.

So, being a children's theater production, there were tons of children in the audience. And at the end of the show, they had a Q&A session where anyone in the audience ccould ask the cast and crew questions. Listening to the questions the children had was so fun. It was neat to see how their minds worked. Here were some of the beauties:

The best by far, and the reason for this post's title, was the sweet little girl who asked, "How could Nancy love a man who would kill her?" The minute she asked this question, you could see very single adult in the room get that look of, "Wow, how the heck do we explain THAT?" I think Heather did a lovely job. She said, "Sometimes when someone loves someone, they overlook the bad times and look forward to the good times. She loved Bill because she saw something good in him, even when he was really bad." I thought that was a lovely explanation. But you could tell the little girl was still worried by this. The actor who played Bill said, "She didn't know he was going to kill her. She couldn't know." That seemed to help.

Several of the children asked if the blood on Nancy was real blood. They were obviously worried she was hurt. It was very sweet. But Heather explained that it was fake blood, and even told the audience what was in it - after telling them they shouldn't make it at home without their parents' permission. :)

At one point in the Q&A session, one of the women on stage said something about "the beggar class", referring to the class separations in the play. Later, a little boy asked, "What's beggar school?" No one knew what he was talking about. He then said, "You said earlier they take beggar class. What is beggar school?" The entire audience went, "Awww..." It was really sweet.

By the nature of the life we're leading right now, I don't spend a great deal of time with children. But Sunday was a good reminder that we all should spend some time with them on occassion, if only to remind ourselves the way they see the world, and the effect we might have on that view.

2002-03-26T11:49:00.000-08:00

Did the Academy go too far? I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole issue of race and this year's Oscars, and whether or not the whole evening was a contrived and scripted celebration of Blacks in Hollywood.

But this editorial in The Wall Street Journal made me think about one aspect of it that hadn't occurred to me yet:

There was more to the racial menu of Oscar night than Whoopi's racial hamming. Take the Oscar for lifetime achievement awarded to Sidney Poitier. Here's a magnificent actor--along with Orson Welles, Charles Laughton, Marlon Brando, Cary Grant, Henry Fonda and Woody Allen--perhaps the finest Hollywood has seen, of any race. Yet at the Oscars, in a film of talking heads paying tribute to Mr. Poitier, we had only black actors--Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Danny Glover, Cuba Gooding Jr. and others--describing him as a role model, an inspiration. But surely Mr. Poitier was an inspiration not just to black actors. Could they not have had a selection of white ones too, paying homage to the great old man?
I guess not, for that would have ruined the academy's thesis, which was that the time had come for Hollywood--big, bad, white Hollywood--to expiate its racial sins. So a Manichaean presentation of Mr. Poitier's contribution was more useful than a nuanced one, even though a sprinkling of white faces in the tribute might have made the more effective, and noble, point, that Mr. Poitier was the first black man to transcend race in Hollywood.

It didn't occur to me at the time to be bothered by this. But now that I think about it, it does sort of seem to lend credence to the idea that this year's Oscars were a bit more constructed and planned than they normally are. Like all of the members got a memo saying, "This year, vote for the black actors," or something. I'm not saying this DID happen. I'm just saying that one aspect of it was the first thing that struck me in such a way to make it seem possible.

2002-03-26T11:19:00.000-08:00

I'd like to thank the Academy... Great article on Salon.com about What's wrong with the Oscars, and specifically what's wrong with the acceptance speeches. From which we get this great gem:

New Academy Awards producer Laura Ziskin has vowed to address some of this stuff. She can hardly do worse than previous producer Gil Cates, who suggested giving a high-definition TV to the Oscar winner with the shortest acceptance speech. Maybe Ziskin will cut the sappy Phil Collins hit du jour and the "Up With People" brigade, and give a TV to anyone who manages an engagingly heartfelt or hilarious speech, preferably with either tears of joy, or peals of crazed laughter. While you're at it, Laura, throw in a TV for anyone who either 1) thanks Heidi Fleiss, 2) lives in New York but fails to mention how much she loves being a New Yorker or 3) points to his fellow nominees and screeches, "Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo!"

2002-03-26T08:13:00.000-08:00

All the waiting is over: This has definitely been a week of good news. On Thursday, Carlos had his match day for residency. Match Day is basically this huge party in which all of the 4th year medical students open their letters, telling them what residency they are going to, at the same time. At a medical school like Carlos's, which is a pretty top notch program where most of the students matched to their 1st or 2nd choice, this is a pretty huge celebration. Carlos was one of the students who matched to his first choice. So in July, he will begin his residency at New York Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn, NY.

Two days later, I got my acceptance letter to The Actors Studio Drama School in Manhattan. This is a HUGE honor. I will be attending a 3 year MFA program in directing there. And, yes, this is the same Actors Studio that you see on Inside the Actors Studio on Bravo TV. When you watch that show, the young people in the audience, who stick around after for the Q&A session, and the MFA students at the school I'm going to. And the host of the show, James Lipton, is the dean of the school. One fun thing is the acceptance letter I got was hand-signed by James Lipton. Kind of a hoot.

So, it's truly been a week of good news. To top it off, we just found out good friends of ours are having a baby in August. (I'll leave them unidentified, as it's their news to share, not mine.) But it just confirms my belief that this has been a fantastic week.

2002-03-26T07:24:00.000-08:00

It finally dropped below 80: After watching President Bush's approval rating stay about 80% for so long, I was somewhat heartened by the Gallup poll results thjs morning showing his approval rating at 79%. Okay, so it's a small drop, but I'll take it. I just want it low enough by the time the mid-term elections happen that Republican candidates don't win their elections on the strength of his approval rating alone.

The thing that boggles my mind is that for the polling period of September 7th-10th, his approval rating was 51%. For the polling period of September 21st-22nd, his approval rating was 91%, and hasn't dropped below 80% until today. I still don't understand what he did in response to September 11th or the Afghanistan situation that merits THAT kind of approval rating. I hardly see the actions he's taken as indicating that he's doing his WHOLE JOB that well. Perhaps he's responded to that situation appropriately. But in my opinion, he's still tanking in other areas.

2002-03-25T13:18:00.000-08:00

Another way of looking at it: Thanks to Karin for passing along this hilarious review of the Oscars. I certainly don't agree with all of it, but there are some valid points, albeit with possibly overdone emphasis. If nothing else, it's a riot.

2002-03-25T07:55:00.000-08:00

Obligatory Oscar Wrapup: Last night I watched the 74th Annual Academy Awards. All 4+ hours of it. Apparently there was no pressure to keep this one short. I guess Julia Roberts' threats to "stick man" during last year's ceremony had John Williams cowed.

So as someone who is going into the theater/entertainment industry for a living, and someone who is a huge movie fan, I do find myself with some commentary about the event. But it wasn't that remarkable of a ceremony, and there weren't many huge surprises. Though there were some upsets. But here's my take on the evening:

We've all heard the complaints over the years about the lack of representation by actors of color in Hollywood. Last night, that was obviously on a lot of people's minds. First we got the Hersholt Humanitarian Award, which went to Arthur Hiller. He was honored for many reasons, but one of the things spoken about at length was his efforts to bring opportunity to actors regardless of race. Then we got the Honorary Osar given to Sidney Poitier, the first (and until last night the only) African American to win the Best Actor award. Then we had the best documentary winners, who made a documentary about a kid charged with murder because he was black, and found walking near the crime scene. Their acceptance speech gave homage to Martin Luther King, Jr. Then we had the awards to Halle Berry for Best Actress (first African American to win this award), and Denzel Washington for Best Actor. I guess with all of that, my great hope is that it wasn't just some token, "Hey, there have been some complaints, let's do something about it," gesture that fades away as things return to the status quo. I hope that was a sign of some real change.

Some of my personal picks didn't win. However, some of the ones that beat them were in movies I haven't seen yet, so it's hard to complain. I would have loved to see LOTR pick up more awards than it did. The one real disappointment for me was that it didn't win the Best Adapted Screenplay award. I thought the smooth adaptation from the book to the movie was one of the best strengths of that film, and I wish it had been awarded as such. (See Ginger's site for her commentary on the further depths of the injustice of that.) I haven't even seen Ali, and I was sort of hoping to see Will Smith win the Best Actor award, but mostly because I just really like him. The one award that didn't go the way I expected it to that made me happy was Best Actress. I was really worried that Nicole Kidman would win it. I was very upset that she was nominated, and Ewan MacGregor wasn't. He was by FAR the better performance of the two, and really made that movie special for me. Though I am disappointed Moulin Rouge didn't win more. (And I loved Whoopi's comment about the film during the presentation of it for Best Picture when she said, "And apparently all of this happened without a director." Baz Lurhmann's absence from the Best Director nominations was a crime to me. He's obviously a visionary, and shouldn't have at least gotten the nomination for it.)

I was pleasantly surprised by how tastefully the whole issue of 9/11 was handled. I frankly expected to get beaten over the head with it. But I thought Tom Cruise's opening monologue about why actors should keep doing what they do, and why it was okay for them to be celebrating tonight, was fairly well done. And the moment of silence for those who lost their lives that day, done just before the memoriam for members of the film community who died this part year, was very tasteful and moving. I'm glad that was about all we heard about it the whole night. Nicely done.

Okay, what the HELL is this new trend of having perfectly good actors trapped back stage doing the voice over bits? It was bad enough last year when Peter Coyote was stuck in that horrible job. All I could think every time they showed him was, "Man, it must suck to be an out of work actor." But this year, to insult Donald Sutherland and Glenn Close with that job - that was just horrible. I thought it was the most undignified use of their time. And they seemed the whole time to be caught somewhere between "pity me for being an out of work actor" and "hey, agents and casting directors - we're not dead yet, here we are" status. Sad. They should go back to having it be some unknown voice over person the way it used to be. That just sucked.

Whoopi Goldberg is a really good Oscar host. She's dignified enough to do a good job, but irreverent enough to make the cracks that need to be made. She got in some nice jabs that no one else could have gotten away with. But she didn't turn the evening into her own political soap box. She did a fine job hosting. The best part was during her opening bits, when everyone could hear Julia Roberts' laugh over everything else. She looked at her and said, "Man, I'm just cracking you up tonight, huh?" Cute.

So, overall, not a bad Oscars night. I'm glad I watched. But next time, they DAMN sure better not wait to start it until 8:30, and I think "stick man" needs to get his job back under control. Having it end at almost 1:00 AM was just too much.

Oh, and I almost forgot:

As someone who loves New York City with a passion, and is getting desperately impatient about our impending move there, may I say how much I HATED the choice of Woody Allen to introduce the tribute to New York, and how much I wanted him to just SHUT UP. Boy I've never liked him. And last night he showed all the reasons why.

2002-03-22T11:46:00.000-08:00

Not much to say: Life is acting a bit insane these days, and I'm finding myself not much in a talkative mood. So I thought I should apologize to all three of you who read this page, and let you know I'll try to get back in the swing of things soon.

Some short updates:

Meatout went fine. My faith in veganism was restored at dinnertime, when we have hummus, pita, and falafel for dinner. Tasty. Still not planning to go that way permanently, but it was an interesting experiment.

I've read some interesting things today about sexism, Michael Moore, and John Ashcroft (as separate topics, not in one place). I'll try to feel eloquent about them soon.

Have a good weekend, everyone!

2002-03-20T07:55:00.000-08:00

The Catholic boys club: Maureen Dowd today writes about the problems with the Catholica all boys club.

The church says priests must be male because Jesus' apostles were male. So should women have stayed out of U.S. government because the founding fathers were male?

Celibacy is not church doctrine but a tradition from the Middle Ages. By that logic, hospitals would still be using leeches.

The logic, "But we've always done it this way," has always seemed to me the weakest reason to continue doing something. And as Dowd points out, surely we've learned our lesson by now from Al Qaeda and the Taliban that forcing women into a subservient, second-class role is not a good thing.

2002-03-20T07:45:00.000-08:00

He ain't fooling me: It seems Bush is pursuing the support of women because they tended to support Al Gore in the previous election. Sorry, Dubya ol' boy. No matter WHAT you do for women-owned small businesses, you aren't going to convince me you've got my best interests at heart.

2002-03-20T07:43:00.000-08:00

Let's just develop it all!!! This story about the efforts of the White House to shrink endangered species habitats made me sad. The prevailing argument behind doing so seems to be, "That's perfectly good land we could build something on, so it's bad to keep us from it." Even if you concede that we might not need all the land designated to protect the different endangered species out there, it's sad to me to think someone finds only development value in land, and doesn't see the value in unmolested land. In the article:

"How do you set aside 500,000 acres of the most valuable land in the country and say there is no economic impact?" asked Rob Thornton, a lawyer trying to throw out the gnatcatcher habitat that spans the coast from Orange County to San Diego. Builders in Southern California found that preserving the habitat would cost the state $300 million to $5.5 billion in lost construction jobs and new housing.

What I don't get is, how can you "lose" construction that hasn't happened yet? Why is it so horrifying to imagine having land out there with *gasp* nothing on it? I just don't get it.

2002-03-20T06:52:00.000-08:00

Okay, here we go... It's officially the Great American Meatout. In honor of it, I'm going vegan for a day. Wow. I had NO IDEA how many things in my pantry and fridge had hidden dairy or egg products in them. I'm sure I've messed up and put something in my lunchbox today I shouldn't have. But I'm trying. And if the short part of today that has already happened is any indicator, I'm in no danger of making this a permanent life change anytime soon.

One thing that made this easier is I did have my spinning class this morning. Since I'm wholly incapable of having an actual meal before a good workout, on spinning mornings I pack my breakfast and lunch in a lunchbox to take to work. So last night, I was able to plan out most of today's meals, with labels in hand, etc. (It probably also helps that I'm on Weight Watchers, so I'm an inveterate label reader anyway.) So here's what I came up with:

Pre-workout: Lemon Zest Luna bar (I can't tell you how happy I am these things are vegan)

Breakfast: bread, natural peanut butter, pear

Lunch: Progresso Lentil Soup, veggie pepperoni slices, carrots, graham crackers

Snacks: Shredded Wheat, another pear, and an apple

Dinner: either middle eastern food (hummus, pita, falafel) or stir fry (tofu and veggies with rice)

It's certainly a healthy menu today. But it's only 9:50 AM, and I'm already totally jonesing for some eggs or cheese. And finding protein sources was HARD. My most common protein sources are veggie meat products, almost all of which have egg whites in them. I also use the Kraft 2% slices a lot, or milk, or cottage cheese. Nothing doing. And some of the foods I thought I'd be eating today had the wackiest hidden dairy/egg products in them. My GRANOLA has milk products in it. I thought granola would be totally safe. Harumph. I couldn't even bring wheat crackers to go with my lentil soup because they've got milk powder AND egg yolks in them.

So, I'm glad to do this for a day to spend a day being more mindful of my diet, and to honor the meatout. But I couldn't do this all the time. Wow.

2002-03-18T13:03:00.000-08:00

Death Penalty past it's time? Here's an excellent NY Times editorial on Deciding Who Will Live. It makes some great points about why we should no longer use the death penalty, all of which I heartily agree with. I also just don't personally get the whole, "You killed someone, and that's bad, so now we're going to kill you," logic.

2002-03-18T12:53:00.000-08:00

Great ready for it... This Wednesday, March 20th, is the 18th annual Great American Meatout. It is a day observed every year, on the first day of spring, for giving a meatless diet a try for a day. It is designed to raise awareness about the vegetarian diet, and also provide education about healthy eating in general.

Since I'm already living a meat-free life, I'm going to use that day to go vegan for a day. (For those who don't know, vegan is a diet in which one eats no animal products of any kind, including dairy and eggs.) I usually eat a large amount of dairy and eggs, so that should be an interesting challenge.

So, are you willing to give it a shot? Why don't you let me know in the comments section if you're planning to participate.

2002-03-15T07:35:00.000-08:00

Well, that's a shame: This morning, Snopes has debunked the story of George Bush waving at Stevie Wonder. It was a great story, though. And this bit of the debunking says a lot about our Commander in Chief:

Stories that showcase blockheadedness stick to George W. Bush like feathers to a tar-coated chicken because they seemingly confirm what much of the public already holds as true about this public figure, that he's not the brightest fellow that's ever been.

So if we all KNOW he's stupid, why does his approval rating stay so high? (Currently sitting at 80%) Sometimes the state of our country makes me just a little bit sad.

2002-03-14T09:16:00.000-08:00

La Boheme meets Moulin Rouge: As his next major project after the successful Moulin Rouge, Baz Luhrmann will be Bringing 'La Bohème' to Broadway. Now, I'm not much of an opera fan, but after the amazing movies of his I've seen so far, this is one opera I will plan to see.

2002-03-14T09:08:00.000-08:00

Get thee behind me, Satan! The mayor of a small town in Florida has officially outlawed Satan from her town. I have many comments I can make, but the story is so ridiculous, I think it speaks better for itself.

2002-03-14T08:57:00.000-08:00

Hopefully, the beginning of the end: This editorial in the Wall Street Journal today communicates what I hope is the beginning of the downturn in Bush's popularity. By agreeing to the steel tariffs, it's likely he's started to tick off some people he probably shouldn't be ticking off. It's also likely that he's caused even larger bruises to the economy than his tax cuts are doing. For instance:

We know full well the price we will pay for this protectionism. According to a study by the Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition, rising steel prices will cost the economy perhaps $3 billion by driving up prices for everything from automobiles to washing machines and hammers. The tariffs might save 6,000 steel jobs but cost 50,000 jobs in steel consuming industries, and the steel industry will only decline more slowly than it otherwise would. And America has given up its moral authority to argue for lower global trade barriers to increase international trade and raise the quality of life for everyone around the globe.

The other aspect of this that has me concerned, and frankly surprises me coming from a Republican president is this:

Not to mention the signal sent to every other U.S. industry that wants bailouts or government assumption of their legacy contractual obligations. First the airlines got a bailout right after Sept. 11. The farmers are next, with a near doubling of their government subsidies already promised by the president in the name of food security. Then will come timber, textiles and technology: Look what steel got! We can get it too! It seems likely they can.

This seems a bit of a "tax and spend" kind of mentality, that normally the Republicans blame the Democrats for favoring. Bush's economic policies since entering office have seemed anything but fiscally conservative.

Reading this article, one would assume these steel tariffs to be the first nail in the coffin of Bush's ability to carry a second term. But then part of me thinks, "Who in the general public really pays attention to steel tariffs?" So for now, I'm going to just keep my fingers crossed, and hope that this is really the death knell the author thinks it is.

2002-03-13T14:31:00.000-08:00

Well said! Over at makura no soshi today, Karin has a very well-written post about vegetarianism and veganism. I'm always pleased to read such good commentary on the subject from a meat-eater. One of the points I've heard Karin make on several occasions is the idea that, vegetarian or no, we'd all benefit from being more mindful about what exactly it is that we're eating. (And for me, that process led to being vegetarian.) There are also links in her post to some great articles in the Washington Post about being vegetarian. Both are great reads.

One of the greatest compliments I've ever received came from my friend Duke, who told me, "You are the least preachy person I know who is vegetarian for moral reasons." (He told me this while we were dining at Vegetarian Dim Sum House, my new favorite vegetarian restaurant.) While I am always more than happy to talk to someone about being vegetarian, if the person is truly interested in the subject, I try to always be aware of the bad rep that vegetarians have for being preachy and pushy. Don't get me wrong - I'd be THRILLED if the whole world suddenly became vegetarian. But I don't expect it to happen, nor do I try to put down those who eat meat. I view it as a personal choice. For me, it's very similar to religion. Being vegetarian is as important to me as religion is to many people. But I would never in a million years try to push my religion on anyone else, and I expect the same respect in return. (Meat eaters who try to "bring me back to the fold" make me totally crazy.)

2002-03-13T13:14:00.000-08:00

Well, that made my day: Sometimes these tests just make me feel better about myself

When it comes to being mysterious, that's what you do best. You like to leave others puzzled and speak in riddles. You're not out there for the fame and fortune, you're just being yourself, doing what you do best. You're strong and courageous, and you're always the leader of the pack. You're skillful; people respect you, and you respect people.

(Thanks, Karin for the link.)

2002-03-13T09:21:00.000-08:00

Maybe there's hope: Like a good geek, I tuned in Sunday night when Fox aired the new Star Wars: Attack of the Clones trailer. It actually looked like it might redeem some of the horrible mistakes of the catastrophe that was Phantom Menace. Some of the visuals were stunning, and the story was clearly darker, and edging out of the "cute kids" and "funny animated characters" genre. (Surely Hayden Christensen will be less annoying than Jake Lloyd - not a hard target to hit.) And the most encouraging thing of the entire trailer:

No Jar-Jar Binks. *whew*

2002-03-13T08:15:00.000-08:00

The verdict is in... As of yesterday, Andrea Yates was found guilty of capital murder. I suspect that the fact that this verdict came in Texas means she's likely to get the death penalty. I find that sad.

I've been following the case somewhat, and the one thing that struck me, that always strikes me as awful in cases like this, is that the jury is given NO instruction that, if found not guilty by reason of insanity, she will STILL get locked up - in a mental institution of some sort. The options presented to them are, "guilty, and either life sentence or death penalty, or set her free." If the laws were changed such that a "not guilty by reason of insanity" carried some form of committment to an institution, I think a jury might be more likely to pick it. But this jury was faced with "not guilty" meaning she would go free - which is unlikely to be the case.

I hope that somewhere in that jury, someone has seen through the mental illness issues enough to at least not put her to death. We'll see. But I'm not hopeful.

2002-03-13T08:10:00.000-08:00

It's MY name, damnit! I had a very frustrating experience yesterday. I got a wedding invitation in the mail for a wedding I'm going to be in next month. It was addressed to, "Dr. and Mrs. Carlos Holden." Now, first of all, Carlos isn't a doctor yet. (Close, but no cigar - yet.) But that part is probably an honest mistake of someone who doesn't see me much, and wasn't sure if he'd graduated yet.

But this Mrs. Carlos Holden stuff REALLY gets to me. I didn't change my name when I got married. I am still Ms. Amy Hemphill. There IS no Mrs. Carlos Holden. (Even his mother is Dr. Sarah Holden, thankyouverymuch.) So I figured it was just a slip, and sent an e-mail to the girl who sent the invite, and lightheartedly asked her who Dr. Carlos Holden was, and who this Mrs. Holden was that was married to him.

Her reply was that she actually fought with her mother over this, and her mother INSISTED that proper etiquette was to address ALL married couples as "Mr. and Mrs. Husband's Name", whether the wife changed her name or not, and had made her do just that. EXCUSE ME??? Since when is it proper etiquette to change someone's name for them? Since when is it proper etiquette to tell someone they don't have the right to their own choices? When I thought it was just an honest mistake, I was miffed, but used to it. When I found it this was actually a conscious CHOICE, with some form of REASON behind it, I just got mad. How dare someone else decide for me what MY name is??? (And don't get me started on the bride's mother's belief that she gets veto votes on her daughter's wedding. She's been doing it all along, and it drives me crazy...but that's a whole other rant for another time.)

*sigh* I suppose I should be used to this by now, but I'm just not.

(If the person who sent said wedding invitation happens to read this site, let me assure you that my frustration is at your mother, not at you.)

2002-03-11T11:10:00.000-08:00

My new horse: For a cyclist, happiness is a newer, lighter bike. Well, I got that in abundance when I picked up my new Cannondale R400 on Thursday. It's a fantastic bike. I took it out for a spin on Saturday, and just fell in love. I've been riding a heavy hybrid bike for so long that I just had no idea how good a road bike would feel. I felt like I was floating on air, and had suddenly improved my fitness ability tenfold. It was amazing. I haven't named her yet, but I will. She's too cool not to have a name. :)

2002-03-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

Good ol' Dixieland: Sometimes, because I'm a Texan who moved to New England, I hear opinions about how backwards the South is compared to the North. Most of the time, I take offense at attitudes like this. After all, I'm from the South, and I'm a total bleeding heart liberal. So we're not all bad.

Then I read editorials like this one, which remind me where the South gets its reputation. The story is about a lawsuit in Alabama, 10 years ago, to solve the problems of school funding, and how it varies so widely based on the race and financial status of the area. As you might imagine, the poor black schools were in horrible condition, and were lacking in many things necessary to offer a basic education. (One school was so poorly underfunded, they couldn't offer basic math and science classes, making their students inelligible for college no matter how hard they tried. Another school was so infested with fire ants that they would come up through the floorboards and bit the 1st graders as they napped.)

The lawsuit was successful, and a plan was put into place to even out the school financing, and help save some of the underfunded schools. But the legislature dragged their feet, and not much got done. Now, the chief judge of the Alabama Supreme Cout, Roy Moore - who was elected on his record of bringing the ten commandments into the courtroom in the form of a 2 ton monument - is working to overturn the lawsuit. How? By trying to reinstate an ammendment originally shot down by the same lawsuit. Ammemndment 111 to the Alabama State Constitution removed the right to a public education as a matter of law. Meaning that no one could argue that the legislature wasn't doing their job if the schools didn't offer adequate education. And, as you might also imagine, the schools most affected by this were poor, black schools. The Ammendment was repealed as part of the previous lawsuit. Now Judge Moore and some of his colleagues want to reopen the status of Ammendment 111.

Maybe these here Yankees have a point.

2002-03-11T10:31:00.000-08:00

We could be here for a while: There is the threat of a filibuster when the current Shays-Meehan bill for campaign finance reform hits the Senate floor, after passing the house. Sen. Phill Gramm (R. TX) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R. KY) have threatened to start the filibuster. If that doesn't work, they have also threatened to attach ammendments to the bill, which would send it back to a House-Senate conference, where it would surely be killed.

Hopefully the word will get through to these lawmakers that such tactics will do nothing to win them voter and taxpayer support. As the author of the editorial says:

Even Trent Lott, the Senate minority leader, appears to be signaling that the time for legislative obstructionism has passed. Republicans and Democrats alike should not be tying up the Senate, preventing it from getting to other business, simply to postpone a bill that an increasingly impatient public wants.

Indeed. Let's get back to work, what do you say, guys?

2002-03-11T10:23:00.000-08:00

Six months later, we're not "over it": Six months after the terrorist attacks, there are still signs of trauma and mental health problems related to the events. This article in the New York Times talks specifically about issues being seen in New York City. But I'd be willing to bet the problem goes beyond that.

One interesting quote in the article was this:

She said she felt guilty discussing her continuing reactions to Sept. 11, when she did not know anyone who died in the attack.

...

"A lot of people expect they should be over this by now," Dr. Nadel said. "They say, `I should have forgotten this by now, it didn't happen to me, I don't know why it should be affecting me so much.' "

I know exactly what they mean. Sometimes I feel almost guilty for still being sad over this, or for still being so affected by the images I see in the media. On the CBS show "Sunday Morning" this weekend, the entire show was dedicated to stories related to today's 6 month anniversary. And the pictures just ripped at my heart. I spent the whole length of the show watching the TV and crying, like I did 6 months ago. But I didn't know anyone who died, nor did I know anyone injured. I always end up with this feeling like my own sadness is so trivial that I should feel guilty for feeling it.

But the truth of the matter is this affected all of us, some in very profound ways we don't as of yet understand. I try now to imagine what it was like before this was part of who we are...and I can't. I can't remember what it felt like to not know that terrorists had killed thousands of people in one day - in the city that I'm moving to in a matter of months. I can't remember what it was like to not be afraid of, "What's next?" I can't remember what it was like to not look at the skyline of New York City with a feeling of sadness.

I guess I was one of those that imagined that, 6 months later, I'd be "over this", too. But I'm not. It's certainly better than it was. 6 months ago, I felt guilty when happy things happened. My birthday is on September 15th, and the decision of whether or not to go out and celebrate with my friends as planned is one I wrestled with. And even though we decided to keep our plans, the celebration certainly wasn't what I'm used to with my wild and crazy friends. But now, we are all able to just spend time having fun. And the subject of terrorism doesn't enter into every conversation like it did for a good month or two afterwards. I think we, like most of the country, have managed to move on, even if we're not over it. I guess that's all any of us can expect for now.

2002-03-08T13:27:00.000-08:00

Tom Tomorrow blogs: Tom Tomorrow, the political cartoonist, now features This Modern World by Tom Tomorrowa blog on the front page of his site. Check out especially the entry entitled Pay some attention to that man behind the curtain. In it, he says:

"Actually, this brings me to another point I’ve been wanting to discuss, which is, essentially: reasonable people can disagree. I know this is a revolutionary breakthrough in the study of human interaction, a concept so stunning that many of you will be tempted to reject it out of hand, but bear with me here. If someone disagrees with you politically on, say, 20% of issues, or even 30% or 40%--it does not make that person your Automatic Sworn Enemy. Because we are here in the blog mode, let’s talk about this in blog terms: there are a number of bloggers whose writing I genuinely enjoy, even as their politics differ from my own. Lileks, for instance--jesus christ, have you seen his site? His obsession with retro pop culture, science fiction, and roadside americana mirrors my own to an astonishing degree--he recently posted a jpeg of the cover of an old paperback novelization based on the Hugh O’Brien tv show "Search" (and probably no more than five people reading this have any idea what that means, but if you’re one of them, then you should understand everything I’m trying to say here), and he’s an utterly brilliant writer, whose meditations on family and life are thoughtful and wise. So maybe we don’t have the Exactly the Same Politics, or even anything approaching a similar worldview sometimes--am I therefore required to deny myself the pleasure of reading his work, of rooting through his extraordinary archive of pop culture detritus? I don’t think so.

But as always, I could be wrong™."

Wise words from a funny man.

2002-03-08T13:21:00.000-08:00

Art imitating life? From over on Instapundit.com, this gem about an episode of Drew Carey that ABC threatened to censor. The show pokes fun at the airport security issue by having his two bumbling friends get jobs in airport security. The network's problem?

"ABC, however, was purportedly concerned that the script didn’t feature anyone “competent” on the airport security staff. Carey claims the censors then threatened to toss the entire episode if producers didn’t make changes."

To which the MSNBC reporter replied:

"ABC couldn’t immediately be reached for comment Wednesday. But a network source told the Times that censors were concerned it might be irresponsible to make all airport security look incompetent. (After all, where would the writers get such a bizarre idea in the first place?)"

Where, indeed?

2002-03-08T11:14:00.000-08:00

More friends speaking my thoughts: This whole Andrea Yates thing has me just sick. I mean, you have to react strongly to a woman who kills her five children. But I'm just not convinced that she's the devil incarnate who deserves torture and death, as so many seem to. But, thankfully, Ginger has managed to calmly and thoughtfully sum up the situation. You can read her reasoned thoughts here. The part that struck me especially was this:

I'm horrified by the sheer bloodlust of many of the people who want to kill Andrea Yates. She was obviously not operating on all cylinders for a long time. Even the prosecution isn't arguing that she was sane, merely that she wasn't quite as insane as the defense claims she is. ...
But I don't want her running around loose and I don't want her around kids. Keeping her locked up somewhere so that we can all be sure she's not off the medication she needs to stay as sane as she ever gets, and sterilizing her to make sure she never has kids again, is the best thing I've seen so far by way of compromise.

I've never been a proponent of the death penalty, so I always find it shocking how much some people want other people dead. But Ginger is right that this has reached the point of bloodlust. There seems to be a widespread visceral reaction to the death of these children that, in my opinion, has blinded most people to many of the issues involved in the case. And the fact that it happened in Houston, the capitol of capital punishment, doesn't exactly ease my mind on that particular point.

2002-03-08T10:51:00.000-08:00

The sheep who cried censorship: The great thing about having articulate friends is that sometimes, rather than trying to formulate my own thoughts eloquently, I can just point you over to them and remark, "What he said!" Well, this time it's Chuck who speaks my mind for me, on the subject of what is and what ain't censorship. Thanks for the reminder, Chuck.

2002-03-08T10:33:00.000-08:00

They're super, thanks for asking! It seems maybe Big Gay Al had it right, that some gay animals just needed a place to feel accepted. In this article from Salon.com, we meet a pair of gay penguins from the Brooklyn Aquarium.

Now we just have to wait for the inevitable backlash, first from the camp that tries to convince is they weren't born that way, but CHOSE to be gay, and then the fundamentalist penguins who will try to "cure" them and force them to live the lives of straight penguins.

(Thanks to Karin for pointing this one out.)

2002-03-07T10:09:00.000-08:00

Great music and personal space issues: I finally got to see Great Big Sea live on Tuesday night. They are a fantastic Celtic-Rock kind of band from Newfoundland. Their music is tremendously fun, and they are a blast live. They had the joint jumping.

Now, the problem with this experience was the venue where we saw them. We went to a place in New Haven called Toad's Place, which I found to my dismay is a standing room only venue. Meaning no chairs. Perhaps 5 bar stools, but no seating for ticket holders for the show. The only demarkation of any kind in the room was a large fence that separated the "all ages" area (right in front of the stage) from the "21 and over" area by the bar. So we arrived at 8:00 for the 8:30 show, and moved to the front of the room, about 5-10 feet from the stage, to stake out a spot.

The opening act was a group called Carbon Leaf, who were FANTASTIC. They had the most incredible bass player, who played both electric bass and double bass, both with amazing skill. He played more like a guitar player. Interestingly enough, his bass had five strings, which was not something I'd seen before. While they were playing, it was not too crowded. Plenty of room to dance around, or stand still without getting physically assaulted by those dancing around. But after they finished, and the roadies started setting up for Great Big Sea, what seemed to happen was a mad rush of the fanatical GBS fans who'd been drinking to get from the bar side of the fence to the stage side of the fence. We found ourselves VERY quickly smashed in a huge crowd with lots of people - many of whom were quite drunk. When GBS came on stage and got started, I found myself veritably crushed by the people pushing forward to get closer to the stage. Now, I don't consider myself totally claustrophobic. But I am when it comes to crowds. I like being somewhere I can move relatively freely, and where if I need to bolt, I can bolt without having to swim through a sea of crushing bodies. This situation started to make me a bit uncomfortable.

The big problem came in the form of one group in particular of what looked to be college aged kids from Canada who were obviously huge fans of GBS, and who were also obviously drunk. They seemed to think that though they'd waited to come forward until the crowd was already packed tight, it was their predestined right to be at the front of the stage, and they shoved people and pushed people with total disregard to accomplish this. (Have I mentioned before how much I hate people with a sense of entitlement?) This found them at one point early in the show with the loudest and most obnoxious of their gang right next to me, with Carlos on my other side. When a particularly good song started, he started jumping up and down - on my foot. He was bouncing all over the place, bumping into me like I was inside a pinball machine, and on about every third bounce, landing *smack* on my foot, which for the record was still quite sore from my walking exploits in the city the day before. I tried first just putting my shoulder out so it would sort of nudge him back over when he landed on me, hoping he'd get the hint. Nope. So I tried putting my elbow out, and every time he came down on me, it found its way *whoops* into his ribs. No dice. Finally, he looked at ME like I was being rude, and I said, "Could you please stop jumping ON MY FOOT???" He gave me this look like I was insane, and said, "But I'm having FUN. We're supposed to be having FUN." Right, like fun can't be accomplished without shattering my feet. A**hole.

At which point, I asked Carlos to trade places with me. Now, Carlos is not a huge guy. But he currently wears his hair in a buzz cut, and has a goatee, and has a serious presence when he wants to that he can be relatively menacing when he chooses to be. The way it turned out, Carlos and I switched places while the guy had his back turned. I think he was attempting to be a jerk to me again, and turned around to find Carlos there instead of me. The effect was pretty funny. And, consequently, he didn't spend any time jumping up and down on Carlos foot. (Carlos told me later in the car that part of what I missed was the guy turning to his friends and saying, "Holy crap. I almost got the sh*t beat out of me by *pointing to Carlos* that guy RIGHT THERE." Heh. Go Carlos.)

After another song or two, Carlos leaned over and told me he wasn't having ANY fun, and I agreed. So we let Bob and Sarah know that we were going to head to less crowded regions further back. All of a sudden, we were having a blast. At the back of the room, there was tons of empty space that apparently all the fans had been in before pushing forward to help crush us. We had a bottle of water, danced around to the music, and had a generally fun time. The good news was this was a pretty small venue, so from the back of the room, our view wasn't all that different than up front, and we weren't getting bruised.

So I decided I'm NEVER going to go to a show at Toad's again, unless it's a band I'm dying to see and can't see somewhere else, and it's a band I'm okay seeing from the back of the room. But in spite of all of it, I'm happy we went to the show. Great Big Sea, and Carbon Leaf, were both a blast to hear live, and I had a great time.

2002-03-07T08:50:00.000-08:00

Now I'm homesick... Got the news from Ginger that all the Houston based bloggers got together. Seeing a picture of her, Mike, and Chuck made me wish I could have joined them. Hope you had fun, guys!

2002-03-06T09:29:00.000-08:00

Review: Moulin Rouge I finally saw Moulin Rouge! this weekend on DVD. What an excellent movie. I had so much fun watching it. My only major complaint was that I hadn't made it to seeing this one on the big screen. (Though if it wins some Oscars, I just might get a chance to correct that.)

Moulin Rouge is a musical movie directed by Baz Luhrmann, who also directed Strictly Ballroom and William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. I've seen both of those other films, and while I enjoyed them a great deal, I believe that Moulin Rouge is by far a superior film. I am of very mixed feelings when it comes to musicals. I can be entertained by them, but the nature of the songs interrupting the plot and action generally annoy me, and for that reason I'm pretty picky on what musicals I actually love. Well, this is a musical I LOVE.

The story centers on Christian, a bohemian writer and poet, who falls in love with Satine, a courtesan at the Moulin Rouge nightclub. Satine is being courted by an evil Duke, who falls into a jealous rage when he sees that she prefers a penniless writer to him. Add on top of it the whirlwind life of bohemian artists and nightclub performers of turn of the century Paris, and what you have is something between a madcap adventure and a touching love story.

Ewan MacGregor plays Christian, and is such a joy to watch. I had seen him before, most notably as a young Obi Wan Kenobi, and found him charming and entertaining. But in this movie, he just made me fall in love with him as an actor. He is so skilled at conveying honest and pure emotion, that you just have to laugh with him when he's happy and weep when he's sad. He has the most glowing smile, and expressive face. It turns out he also has an incredible singing voice. His rendition of Elton John's "Your Song" is one of the prettiest things I've heard in a while. Throughout the movie, he just dazzles. It is by far one of the best performances I've seen in a long time. I am absolutely flabbergasted that he is not on the Oscar nomination list this year, but Nicole Kidman is.

As usual, I found myself underwhelmed by Nicole Kidman, who plays Satine. I've never found her acting very compelling, and unfortunately for her, her singing voice is far overpowered and overshadowed by MacGregor's. But she doesn't do a bad job, and is quite lovely to look at as the courtesan Satine. I just didn't find myself as deeply moved by her plight and feelings as I did by Christian, or indeed most of the other charcters in the movie.

The true brilliance in this movie is the way Luhrmann incorporates music. Interestingly enough, other than one important song near the end of the movie, all of the music used is popular music that most of the audience should easily recognize. The first time we hear Christian sing, what comes out of his mouth is the line, "The hills are live with the sound of music." Throughout the film, we hear music by Elton John, Whitney Houston, The Police, etc. And what Luhrmann does with the music is sheer brilliance. It is so seamlessly interwoven into the dialogue and plot that I never got that sense I get with musicals of finding the music almost jarring. The piece de resistance was his use of the song "Roxanne" as a tango between one character and the courtesan he loves. Absolutely brilliant.

Visually, this movie is mind blowing. I almost felt as though, had I ever tried absinthe, I just might be seeing the world presented in this movie. The colors and styles of the set made it almost seem like a fantasy film. I was amazed when I watched the DVD special features to find out how much of this was based on what the actual Moulin Rouge really looked like, including a 60 foot tall elephant with a night club inside. Amazing.

When I first heard about this movie, I wasn't in a big rush to see it, and wasn't enthused about the idea of someone trying to recapture the concept of the musical movie. But what Luhrmann delivers here is a movie reminiscent of the great Golden Age of Hollywood, and the blockbuster musical movies produced during that time. It is charming, witty, lush, and wonderful. If you haven't seen it, rent it now.

(And rent it on DVD. In the special features is a section where they show the dancers performing the dance pieces in a dance studio in front of the movie crew. I've never seen dancing quite like that, and it's easier to see the intricacy and skill with which they dance in that special feature than when they're inside the whirl of color and light that is the movie.)

2002-03-05T11:29:00.000-08:00

What an amazing day: Yesterday was such a great day. I'm exhausted, and my feet are killing me, and it was just completely worth it.

Yesterday was primarily the day that I interviewed for the Actors Studio Drama School. My interview was at noon, so I left my house at about 7 AM, drove to New Haven, took the train into the city. My first good omen of the day came when I got on the train, and noticed that two rows behind me were Dan Lauria (he played the father on "The Wonder Years") and Peter Van Wagner, an actor I've seen many times on Law and Order. I decided to take it as a good omen that on the way to my interview, I ended up sitting near actors whose work I greatly enjoyed. I ended up speaking with them, and they told me they were working on a play at the Long Wharf Theater in New Haven.

I arrived in the city and immediately went to my friend Blake's office to get dressed and ready. (I didn't want to muss my nice interview outfit during the 2 hour train trip, and I wanted someone to give me the once over before I left, to make sure I didn't have spinach in my teeth, or my skirt tucked into my pantyhose - that sort of thing.) I found myself ready to go an hour before the interview. I finally caught a cab around 11:15 - and got the speediest cab on the planet, arriving at the interview location a full half hour early.

The assistant in the admissions office directed me to the cafeteria nearby to wait until it was time for my interview. While I was in there, I noticed a large group nearby of students who were obviously part of the program I'm applying to. They were discussing their stage managers and designers, the repertory season (which is done at the end of the year, consisting of the thesis projects of the third year students), etc. They all seemed very happy and excited about the work they were discussing and the things they were involved in. That seemed a good sign.

The interview itself was very interesting. The man who interviewed me, Andreas Manolikakis, is the chair of the directing department a the Actors Studio program. He was born and raised in Greece, and got his BA in theater there, and his MFA in theater in Paris. He is the perfect image of, “artistic, passionate European.” While talking with him, he jumped from subject to subject very quickly, only occasionally looking over his shoulder to see if I’d managed to follow him. It was very hard to gauge if he thought I interviewed well, but the conversation was fascinating if nothing else. I got to talk to him about the difference between European, Russian, British, and American theater. He spoke at length about things he thought every director should know. (And thankfully also let me know that the ones I didn’t know were okay, because some folks who come to him with a BA or MA in theater don’t know them, either.) He even gave me homework, in the form of a list of ten books I should read – and I quote – “before you come to the program…if you come to the program.” I’ll take that as encouraging. He in fact gave me directions to two bookstores near the school where I should be able to find some of the books. I went before I left the city to the stores and found two of the books, and began reading the first on the train home. Needless to say, the man made an impression on me.

One of the nicest parts of the interview was the part where he asked me, at the very beginning, if I had read the recommendation letters written for me. I told him I had not. He said he had received one from a Neil Havens. (That’s Sandy, our theater professor at Rice.) He said it was clear from the letter that Sandy adored me, and it was the most glowing, open hearted recommendation letter he ever read. That’s so terribly sweet. I owe Sandy a great debt for the love of theater he helped me discover. This is one more thing to pile on the list of things I am grateful to him for.

After the interview, and the trips to the bookstore, I went back to Blake’s office, got changed, and went to meet my friends Rob and Duke, old Rice chums who are both now doing theater in New York. (It’s amazing that in order to see my friends from Houston more, all I have to do is move to New York.) They were in the process of getting the music stands they needed for that night’s reading of Overruled by George Bernard Shaw, a staged reading that Rob directed and Duke was in at The Jean Cocteau Repertory. It seemed such a great stroke of luck to have my interview scheduled for the same day as their play, so of course I had to go. Between dropping off the music stands and the show itself, we met up with Duke’s girlfriend Deborah (whom I hadn’t met before this point, and who is absolutely charming) for late lunch/early dinner at my FAVORITE New York haunt, Vegetarian Dim Sum House. Then we wandered to the theater. They had a rehearsal run through, which I got to watch, and then the real reading at 8:00. In between the rehearsal and the actual performance, Rob asked me to run down the street to pick up some cheese for the wine/cheese/cracker spread for the post-show reception. One of the women at the theater pointed me to a place nearby called East Village Cheese Shop. I was in cheese addict heaven. It was this really neat, old-fashioned cheese shop, with the big blocks of cheese, and prices to die for. (I got about 3 pounds of really fine gourmet cheese in different varieties for $8.) The best was a cheese called English Five County Cheddar, which was basically five varieties of cheddar striped into one block. Cool stuff.

The reading was just lovely. The play is a one-act featuring two married couples who meet separately, fall in love with each other (husband A with wife B, and husband B with wife A), and then discuss what to do about it. It had some fairly great English humor to it, and some potentially interesting things to say about the nature of romance, love, and marriage. In the prologue to the play, Shaw said, “This play is neither an argument for – or against – polygamy.” All four actors were very good, and I enjoyed myself immensely. It was also great to see Janinne and Justin, two friends who recently moved from Hartford to New York to pursue acting, and who joined me for the reading.

I realized while driving home that night that part of what made it so special to see that reading on that particular day was that, until recently, it’s been hard not to think of full-time theater in New York as something other people did, and not me. I know that my path is going that direction, and I should be there by fall. But it still feels distant sometimes. When I go to New York to see a show, the people involved belong squarely in the “them” column. But going into the city to see a play at a theater in the Village, where the people involved are two school chums I’ve known for 10 and 12 years, suddenly brought things into glaring reality. Suddenly, this whole theater in New York thing is something done by “us” and “me”. And having that experience on the day of my interview was just fantastic. It really capped the day nicely to start to see that flash of the future in such clear focus.

So, in probably more detail than most people care about, that was my fantastic day yesterday, and the continuing adventures of my attempts to get into graduate school at the Actors Studio Drama School.

2002-03-01T12:25:00.000-08:00

Sorkin a big fat liar? In today's National Review, we get this column by Jonah Goldberg on why Aaron Sorkin is a big fat liar for saying his show West Wing isn't political. He is commenting on an interview Sorkin did recenty in which he said, essentially, that Bush is stupid, and Tom Brokaw goes too easy on him when he interviews him.

But the point Jonah Goldberg seems stuck on is when Aaron Sorkin says his show is fictional, not political. His commentary is based on this portion of Sorkin's interview:

"Bartlet [West Wing's fictional Democratic President] is going to be running against Governor Robert Ritchie, of Florida, who's not the sharpest tool in the box but who's raised a lot of money and is very popular with the Republican Party," Sorkin said. If this sounds familiar, it should. "It was frustrating watching Gore try so hard not to appear smart in the debates-why not just say 'Here's my fucking résumé, what do you got?' We're a completely fictional, nonpolitical show, but one of our motors is doing our version of the old Mad magazine "Scenes We'd Like to See." And so to an extent we're going to rerun the last election and try a few different plays than the Gore campaign did."

According to Goldberg, this is as political as it gets.

See, I disagree. (Big surprise, or why would I be bothering to post and comment?) What I took Sorkin to mean was that he isn't trying to achieve any political goals with his show. He's merely presenting his political point of view. I mean, let's face it, every piece of art presents a point of view, often politica. Now, sure, Sorkin's show happens to be about politics. But it's still just his point of view.

Besides, after I read this section of the article:

"But, who cares if Sorkin thinks Bush is a "bubblehead"? Does this shock anyone? If you've watched the show or seen The American President, or just listened to the guy talk, you'd know that even if Bush had an I.Q. of 7,000, spoke 16 languages, and could explain in flawless Latin how to make the clock on my VCR stop blinking, Sorkin would still think Bush is an idiot. Sorkin's just one of those arrogant Lefties who thinks conservative ideas are stupid until proven otherwise and the burden of proof can never be met (more on that in a moment)."

...I wasn't really ready to be persuaded by Goldberg anyway. He missed the simple point. Bush IS a bubblehead.

2002-03-01T10:43:00.000-08:00

We're too PC to laugh: Today's Wall Street Journal includes an opinion piece whose premise is that Bugs Bunny wouldn't survive our current PC age. I don't entirely agree with everything in the article. But I see the point the writer makes, that so much today isn't allowed to be funny because it's potentially offensive to someone.

I think the reason I like things like South Park is they are equal opportunity offenders. If you make fun of everyone, somehow you're being fair to everyone.

2002-03-01T09:06:00.000-08:00

Two spinsters argue about housework: Over on Spinsters.com, the argument of the day is over the nature of housework and feminism. (Spinsters.com, for those who haven't read it, is a team blog consisting of one conservative woman and one liberal woman. It can get kind of fun from time to time.)

The argument started here, when the liberal spinster, Gena, ranted about an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Caitlin Flanagan about the rise in popularity of "anti-clutter" techniques. I've read parts of the article, and found myself overwhelmed by her gender-specific approach. For example:

"De-cluttering a household is a task that appeals strongly to today's professional-class woman. It's different from actual housework, because it doesn't have to be done every day; in fact, if the systems one implements are truly first-rate, they may stay in place for years. More appealing, the work requires a series of executive-level decisions. Scrubbing the toilet bowl is a bit of nastiness that can be fobbed off on anyone poor and luckless enough to qualify for no better employment; but only the woman of the house can determine which finger paintings ought to be saved for posterity, which expensive possessions ought to be jettisoned in the name of sleekness and efficiency."

She goes on to say that part of the problem is that lack of someone in the home who cares about the upkeep of the home is the reason for all the clutter - and then explains why this person should be the woman. Well, needless to say, Gena takes her to task for that.

The reply from Gena's conservative counterpart, Lee Ann, comes here, in which Lee Ann lambasts Gena for denouncing the role of housewife. Now, I didn't personally get the sense that Gena was doing so. I thought she was responding to the assumption that this role was necessarily the woman's. And I heartily agree with her on this point. Where Lee Ann seems to have taken her response is, "If you say that women shouldn't HAVE to do the housework, then you're insulting those who do." To the point that she assumed Gena was faulting her own dear mother, who is a housewife.

I've gotten into this same argument more than one time myself. I think if someone wants to be a housewife, well then more power to them! The thing that bugs me, and what I thought Gena was referring to, was the assumption that women are naturally better at it, and therefore should/could be expected to be responsible for it. Take this quote (from Lee Ann's response linked above):

"She is also right when she says that women are “more willing to do” housework. Men are more willing to live in filth than women are. The person with the higher hygiene standards will end up doing the cleaning."

See, I agree with her that the person with the higher hygiene standards will end up doing the cleaning. But I think she's wrong to assume that women are "more willing to do it". And I think it's an unfair assumption to make. One of the reasons I see men "willing to live in filth" is that they have been socialized to assume that, eventually, the woman will take care of it. In my house, I'm the slob. My husband does more cleaning than I do. And he does ask me to help him, which I do, because that's fair. We're a team, we do this together. But he doesn't expect me to do it because I'm a woman. And that's the assumption that tends to set the feminists' teeth on edge, and that's the assumption I'm hearing both in the Atlantic Monthly article, and in Lee Ann's response to it.

I suspect Lee Ann's highly negative response, and the response I often get when I discuss this issue, has something to do with people thinking that my saying feminism means you don't have to be a housewife is somehow an insult to housewives. And I think Gena responds very nicely to that exact problem here.

So, all in all, an interesting debate so far, on a topic near and dear to my heart - gender roles and feminism.

2002-02-28T10:10:00.000-08:00

Great new blog: I just found the Independent Gay Forum linked from Instapundit.com It's filled with interesting articles on a variety of subjects related to the gay community, from civil marriage to hate crimes to legalized marijuana for AIDS patients. I'm looking forward to diving in deeper.

2002-02-28T09:09:00.000-08:00

A blow against snobbery and elitism: I loved this screed against Europoean snobbery from James Lileks. He takes an article written by a English reporter travelling in Alabama, and dissects it - with hilarious results.

2002-02-27T14:17:00.000-08:00

The Making of a Restaurant: It has always been one of my pipe dreams that I would someday own a restaurant. I don't think it will ever happen, because I'm more likely to want to spend my energies on my theater career, and owning and running a restaurant is a full-time job - at least.

But I just ran across this weblog of two guys and The Making of a Restaurant. They're hoping to open a restaurant in 4-5 years, and use this weblog as a way to keep track of their ideas. Pretty neat, and fun to read for those of us with dreams of the restaurant business.

2002-02-27T14:01:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, it's just about language: The New York Times had an article today about the Words of 9/11. As an English major myself, I can guarantee you that, whenever a major event in this world happens, someone out there is most interested in the words it creates. This article provides some insight into some of the words being added to the dictionary in the post-9/11 days - including "9/11".

2002-02-27T13:51:00.000-08:00

Alpha women: Maureen Dowd has this interesting piece today about Alpha Girls, who rule the middle schools and high schools, but are hard to find in corporate America.

"Alpha girls ruthlessly rule junior high school, a la "Heathers," with cold shoulders, hot clothes and withering looks known as "deaths," jettisoning pathetic Wannabees from their popular Queen Bee cliques."

"But here is what puzzles me: If schools are overrun with alpha girls, why isn't America run by alpha women? Besides Oprah, it's hard to even think of alpha women who are still soaring."

It's an interesting question. Why is it that we have so much power in our teens, that then disappears when we hit adulthood? Dowd offers a few theories:

"Maybe there would be more alpha women in the working world if so many of them didn't marry alpha men and become alpha moms, armed with alpha S.U.V.'s, alpha muscles from daily workouts and alpha tempers from getting in teachers' faces to propel their precious alpha kids.

Professional alpha women are an endangered species. Over and over, you see alpha males, who would otherwise be plotting to crush one another, forming alliances to crush the uppity alpha woman in their midst."

So we have the power, but we're channeling it to venues other than our own success, and when we do manage to channel it to ourselves, we get squashed by the men who find that intimidating. Makes sense to me.

There's probably something in here to be said about the whole glass ceiling issue, too. That we do in fact still have the power. But those in charge of the companies (normally men) are afraid to let us wield it, because we might leave to have children and leave them with a power sink.

I'm not sure at this point where this leaves us, but it was an interesting thought for a Wednesday afternoon.

2002-02-27T09:17:00.000-08:00

The company he keeps: One of the only things that I've found even vaguely reassuring about the...ahem..."leadership" of President Bush is he tends towards a model of surrounding himself with qualified advisors, and then relying on them for the tough stuff. The only problem is the questionable merits of those advisors. Charles Dodgson over at Through the Looking Glass gives us a few of the more plum examples.

2002-02-27T08:59:00.000-08:00

Now I wish I'd seen it: By way of Matt Welch's site, I found a link to David Letterman's monologue on his first post-9/11 show. I swear, I've got tears in my eyes. And, as distant as some of those events are starting to feel now, I'm glad I read this, and got a little reminder of what we, the people of the United States, have managed to pull out of the wreckage of that day. If a person like Letterman, whose entire career is based on being cynical and irreverant, can pull this kind of eloquence out of thin air, then I think that's a pretty strong statement of what we've got in us. Way to go, Dave.

Despite my constant ranting and raving on the state of this country, I consider myself a very patriotic person. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I loved this country so much, I probably wouldn't bother to rant and rave. The reason I'd like to see us continue to strive to make this country better is because I think, so far, we've made it one of the best there is. And if we can try to remember some of the things said in the aftermath of September 11th, and continue to live them even after all of the rubble is finally cleared, and all of the dust has settled, and not let them become so much posturing when devasation was staring us in the face, we just might have a shot.

2002-02-27T08:28:00.000-08:00

Teen drinking: Over the weekend, I saw a story on Headline News that reported a study saying that 1/4 of the alcohol consumed in this country was consumed by teenagers, which seemed pretty high to me. Well, turns out my instinct was right. Now we've got reports that the study was inaccurate. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit.com has unearthed a few articles pointing to the lack of statistical and scientific method in the study, and the possibility that there was an ulterior motive behind it. Interestingly enough, the supposed goal of the study, a focus on and cutback of teen drinking, might just get derailed. What we're probably going to see is a bigger push to return the drinking age to 18, which I've ALWAYS thought would be a good idea. It seems unfair that someone can die for their country, vote for the leader of the free world, but not have a beer. And studies have shown that, while intended to reduce teen drunk driving was the aim of raising the age to 21, that hasn't in fact happened.

It seems to me that much of the reason we have so many problems with teen drinking is that we raise teens in a world where we teach them drinking is BAD - unless you're an adult. So of course it becomes a taboo activity - a surefire way to make teens want to leap right in. Every time I've talked to someone raised in a European household, where wine was on the table starting in childhood, and drinking was accepted, almost without exception they tell me they don't understand the urge to drink heavily in high school and college. They simply don't get what's so cool about it, because it's something they've always known. And though I can't find the links right now to support my claim, I have read reports in the past that in such countries as Italy and France where drinking is accepted, and started at an earlier age, statistics for things like drunk driving and alcoholism are much lower than they are here.

I'm very interested to see what comes out of all of this.

2002-02-26T12:38:00.000-08:00

The Olympics from the inside: Take a look at b-may's blog, a great recounting of what it was like to actually work at one of the Olympics venues. (He did security for the speed skating rink.) It's an interesting view of what the Olympics were like, and fairly hilarious.

2002-02-26T11:29:00.000-08:00

1st Ammendment right to a really unpopular opinion: An article from the Chicago Tribune about a man arrested for distributing anti-American pamphlets near ground zero last October.

No, I don't agree with a thing the man said. But I don't think that disagreeing with him is grounds for arrest. And I think the article said it all very wel.

2002-02-26T10:43:00.000-08:00

Another fun test: No, I'm not feeling "commenty" today, why do you ask?

Wow, ANOTHER internet test that actually suits me well:

I'm Jean Grey
What X-Men Character are You?

In fact, back in high school, a friend of mine drew our group of friends as the X-Men, and drew me as Jean Grey.

Thanks to Dan for pointing out these two tests. I like 'em.

2002-02-26T10:32:00.000-08:00

Another Test:

Which tarot card are you?

Interesting test, especially for someone who reads Tarot. I normally identify more with the High Priestess. Interestingly enough, in order to change my result to "High Priestess", all I have to do is answer everything the same, except selecting "Reservered" over "Outgoing". I guess it makes sense that the times I'm more in touch with the High Priestess are times when I'm in somewhat deep spiritual thought, and therefore being more inward thinking than outward.

Wow, finally one of these dippy little internet tests made me THINK.

2002-02-25T14:36:00.000-08:00

Moving letter about being a Leftist post 9/11 If you have been experiencing the same, "What does it mean to be a liberal now?" confusion that I have, read this beautiful letter posted on The Blogs of War. As Matt Welch said (from whom I got the link):

"She wrote a letter about her grief, her friend, Naderite Leftists, and their disastrous reactions to 9/11. Punk Planet decided not to run it, so Frank did. It’s one of the most heartbreaking yet clear-headed things I’ve read in the last five months. Take 15 minutes, read it slowly, and please – someone put a book together, or at least a website, collecting this kind of stuff for posterity."

It's beautiful. Take the time to read it.

2002-02-25T12:42:00.000-08:00

Get your comments here! I've added the ability for readers to make comments to the page, courtesy of YACCS. Thanks to Mikey over at coffee corner for introducing me to this great service. Let me hear what you think!

2002-02-22T13:31:00.000-08:00

I miss that guy... Another good one from Matt Welch, with some particularly funny quotes from James Carville. Boy, do I miss having him around the White House.

2002-02-22T13:29:00.000-08:00

More on Nader: The point I glossed over in the post I responded to before is this particular piece of hubris:

Nader says if he had been elected, September 11th wouldn't have happend.

Wow. If that's not enough to make you stop listening to him, what is? That point, and his dubious explanation of how he'd handle the situation now, can be found in this post by Matt Welch.

2002-02-22T13:12:00.000-08:00

Isn't it ironic: I'm still trying to find a rational way to respond to this NY Times article about a speech Bush gave in China urging freedom of worship. Some choice, ironic excerpts:

"Religious freedom should be welcomed rather than feared, President Bush said in a speech broadcast across China today, and he held up the United States as an example of "a nation guided by faith.""

"Under our law, everyone stands equal."

"Mr. Bush added that "all political power in America is limited, and it is temporary, and only given by the free vote of the people.""

"In the remarks, he called the United States a "nation with the soul of a church.""

I'm not even sure where to begin.

2002-02-22T12:23:00.000-08:00

Yeah, me, too! Maybe because it's Friday, I'm finding that most of my commentary today is summed up by, "Yeah, what he/she said!" Well, here's another one.

Chuck over at Off the Kuff has some good things today to say about the fall of Ralph Nader and the marketing machine that is Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as mad as the next guy at the president we ended up with in the last election, and what he's done to the country during his time in office. But, while I used to have great respect for the politics of both Michael Moore and Ralph Nader, they're starting to sound a bit whiny and childish to me. Yes, the election was won by Al Gore, and he should be in the White House. But he's NOT. And NOTHING is going to change that now. Asking for Bush's resignation, as Moore suggests, doesn't solve the problem. It only makes it worse. As much as I hate the concept of President Shrub, I hate the concept of President Cheney even more.

I guess I just don't see either of these guys doing anything to make the world better right now. Instead, they are spending their time bitching about it. I just don't see that as productive. And I get the same sense that Chuck does, which is that Moore's rants are less about principle, and more about selling books. Ugh.

2002-02-22T12:13:00.000-08:00

The Ultimate Artist Smackdown: Karin pointed out this great website calledShakespeare vs. Britney Spears. Now, as horrifying and terrifying as that title is, the gist of it is that you rate what qualities you think are important in art, pick two artists, then rate the quality of those artists. The site then tells you which is the better artist based on your criteria. It's all part of a project being done to determine what makes "great art". It's a fun diversion, if nothing else, and potentially thought provoking.

2002-02-22T12:08:00.000-08:00

I feel your pain: Karin writes this scotch-induced post on being massively, painfully, excruciatingly bored. I'm right there with you sister.

What totally boggles my mind sometimes is the obviously low bar that has been set in the work place as to what constitutes a normal pace of work. I'm constantly getting comments on how fast I type, or how fast I work, or how fast I finish a project. But to me, I'm just working at normal speed. And many weeks, the work that's intended to keep me interested and happy can be squeezed into a few well thought out hours. I guess the upside is it leaves me plenty of time for surfing. But the downside is I end up feeling like my brain is melting out of my left ear.

Karin, the only wisdom I can offer you is this: Make a career change. The only thing that keeps me going these days is my new mantra: "Five more months. Five more months." Knowing that there is an end in sight, and I will be (finally) pursuing my life's dream starting this summer makes the boredom not quite so painful. I realize that's easier said than done, but frankly I think more people in this world should do that. Maybe it would decrease the incidence of road rage, and I'm all for that.

2002-02-22T12:04:00.000-08:00

Living the Simple Life: Karin gives this great description of the life of a pigeon. Really just the thing I needed to put my boring Friday into proper perspective. Thanks, Karin.

2002-02-22T11:54:00.000-08:00

Poor little rich kids: Ginger touches on one of my pet peeves this week, i.e. middle class, young professionals who describe themselves as "poor" when they haven't got half a clue what "poor" really feels like. The post she is responding to is from Child of the 80's, talking about how he's not rich at all, really. The thing that totally weaknes his argument to me is this bit:

"I have to pay for Internet and telephone and electricity and water like everyone else, and I'm fanatic about saving electricity. I buy the bargain brands at the grocery store and consider shopping at Target upscale and a luxury.

There isn't much to save at the end of the month. Luckily I do all my saving in my retirement fund, pre-tax and automatically taken from my paycheck, so I don't miss it."

First of all, "everyone else" doesn't pay for the Internet. That's a luxury item. Those with REAL money problems don't have it. And savings? Feh. Those with real money problems can't save a dime. Living "paycheck to paycheck" is sort of a misleading description when you've got a retirement account growing.

Okay, so I'll buy that he's not RICH. But the way he talks about it, you'd think he was really starving to death here. I worry sometimes that this very attitude that I see so often in people in their 20's and 30's - "Oh, poor me, I have a DVD player, but not an MP3 player." - leads to not recognizing real poverty and doing something about it.

One of the things I try to do whenever I can is go serve a meal at a soup kitchen. It's a tradition in my family to do that BEFORE opening presents on Christmas. It's impossible NOT to feel lucky and blessed with the abundance in your life after serving food to those who have no home or meal. I try very hard not to complain about being "poor" just because I have to push off paying my cable bill for a month, because instead of paying it when I should have, I went to a nice restaurant.

I think a lot of where things like this come from is something I've noticed about my general peer group. Many people who were raised in a middle to upper class household, who have a higher education, who have good jobs - these people honestly don't have any experience outside of that lifestyle. I've noticed on more than one occasion someone I know making a statement that makes it clear that their perception is that the whole world is just like them. It takes effort to remember that not everyone is educated, not everyone drives a decent car, not everyone lives in a nice house or apartment - and most importantly, not everyone has CHOICES. I know that when money is tight for me, it's because I made choices that caused it. I went out too often, or didn't monitor my cash as dilligently as I should have. That's VERY different than being poor, where it's often about choices of food vs. the electricity bill, or worse. And people who don't recognize that distinction are in danger of, in my opinion, sounding like spoiled brats.

2002-02-20T11:06:00.000-08:00

Hail to the...Chief? Thanks to Karin for pointing out this gem. Apparently while visiting Japan, Bush made reference to discussing the, "devaluation issue," when what me mwant was the, "deflation issue." His slip of the tongue resulted in a brief rush to sell the Japanese yen on the international market.

The scary bit was this quote:

"There are even signs that some Americans take what Mr Bush refers to as "my accidental wits and wisdom" as an intrinsic part of his appeal.

And according to opinion polls, the president's approval rating is currently riding high at a near-record 86%."

Ah, so we're HAPPY to have a moron as our president. It's appealing.

Heaven help us.

2002-02-20T10:12:00.000-08:00

Not feeling quiet NOW: I've been pretty quiet on here the last few days. Just didn't have much to say. And then I saw this article on CNN.com about the anniversary of a man killed for making homosexual advances, and the ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court to award custody to a father over a gay mother because homosexuality is, "...abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature." And I find myself not knowing what to say.

I realize that this shouldn't surprise me in the least. I know that there is a very large portion of the human population that doesn't seem to accept homosexuals as being just another part of the human population, deserving of the same rights and freedoms as the rest of us. But the ugly nature of the language used here just makes me so sad. Any form of hate or bigotry just causes me physical pain. And to see this language come out on the anniversary of a man so brutally murdered purely because of his sexuality makes it all the more poignant.

2002-02-19T07:53:00.000-08:00

And another one:

I am OSCAR.

I'm a wild and crazy guy!

Which Sesame Street Character Are You?

2002-02-19T07:50:00.000-08:00

I Am A: Chaotic Good Elf Bard Ranger (Finally an online "what are you" quiz whose results I AGREE with.)

Alignment:
Chaotic Good characters are independent types with a strong belief in the value of goodness. They have little use for governments and other forces of order, and will generally do their own things, without heed to such groups.

Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.

Primary Class:
Bards are the entertainers. They sing, dance, and play instruments to make other people happy, and, frequently, make money. They also tend to dabble in magic a bit.

Secondary Class:
Rangers are the defenders of nature and the elements. They are in tune with the Earth, and work to keep it safe and healthy.

Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy of NeppyMan!

2002-02-15T12:51:00.000-08:00

The review to end all reviews: Thanks to Chuck for pointing out this great review of Crossroads. (And when I say great review, I don't mean to imply the critic liked the movie.) It's a visual thing. You have to see it.

2002-02-15T11:32:00.000-08:00

I guess that seems fair: After allegations of unfair judging, resulting in a gold medal for the Russian pairs skaters over the Canadians, whom the crowd clearly favored as the better skaters, an investigation has resulted in the awarding of a second gold and the suspension of the French judge. I suppose on some level true justice would have involved the Canadians getting the gold, and the Russians having a silver. But in the long run, I think having them share the gold is probably the way to handle this with the least amount of fuss.

Now the real question becomes how the French ice dancing pair will do, now that their judge got suspended for a deal reportedly created to ensure them their gold.

2002-02-15T10:06:00.000-08:00

Final word on the subject: From the same source as the post I quoted in my previous post, there comes this great antidote to the syndrome of taking Valentine's Day too seriously: Romanza! Soft Porn and Bad Advice!. It's basically a blog in which the authors will discuss bad romance novels and dispense romantic advice. What's up so far is pretty funny. Amy-Bob says check it out!

2002-02-15T10:03:00.000-08:00

More on V-Day: Okay, yeah, I'll get off of this subject in a bit. But I admit...it brings up lots of issues I have passionate thoughts about, so I've got a little bit more to say.

Anyway, I found this interesting post on the double-standard of holidays like this one, the same double-standard that causes most people to view it with loathing. And, yes, this is one of those things that makes me almost fall over into the, "Let's not bother," camp of Valentine's Day anti-fans. And, it's also one of the things that has me in such a state of froth whenever I see the whole diamond ad campaign thing. I hate that most engagement traditions are all about HER. I swear, I even had this conversation with a friend once:

Her: He better get me a really great ring.
Me: What are you getting him?
Her: What do you mean?
Me: Well, he's required to get you a "really great ring". What are you getting him?
Her: Well, he gets ME.
Me: Uh huh...and you get him.
Her: *blank look* What?

Needless to say, that conversation never went anywhere constructive, but it's the exact point that makes me so crazy. There are certain traditions and holidays, and Valentine's Day is smack near the top of the list, that are all about what HE is supposed to get for HER. Commercials talk about men bringing home flowers and candy to their wives. Besides the obvious heterosexual bias, it bothers me that you never hear about what SHE should bring home to HIM.

Yes, it would be horribly unfair of me to tout these beliefs, then sit home waiting for my honey to bring me things, like offerings from the serfs for their princess. I think I did a very nice job. I got him a care package that came with Love me Tender Benders, candy, and a nice card. When we got engaged, we BOTH got engagement rings - lovely silver bands. I totally believe in equal opportunity - and responsibility - romance. This one way thing is for the birds.

2002-02-15T07:44:00.000-08:00

Valentine's Day Follow Up: I've come to the conclusion that as much as some people complain about Valentine's Day being a Hallmark-invented excuse to spout romance and buy expensive flowers and candy, I've equally come to the conclusion that it is now an excuse to bash on romance. I've read a bunch of stuff in the last 24 hours either defaming Valentine's Day as a concept, or crabbing about romantic love. This article from Andrew Sullivan was the pinnacle of the latter complaint. An exceprt:

"But ever wonder why divorce rates are so high? The real culprit isn't some kind of moral collapse. It's excessive expectations, driven and fueled by the civic religion of romance. For a lucky few, infatuation sometimes does lead to lasting love, and love to family, and family to all the other virtues our preachers and politicians regularly celebrate. For the other 99 percent of us, relationships are, at best, useful economic bargains and, if we're lucky, successful sexual transactions -- better than the alternative, which has long been close to social death. But thanks to the civic religion of romance, we constantly expect more and quit what we have in search of more. For the essence of romantic love is not the company of a lover but the pursuit. It's all promise with the delivery of the postal service."

Wow. Okay, I realize that infatuation by itself does not a good relationship make. But to imply that relationships are, "at best, useful economic bargains," seems to me to be swinging the pendulum just a LITTLE bit too far back the other direction. And to imply that if you get any romance, you'll, "quit what we have in search of more," is a level of pessimism I'm simply not capable of grasping. Romance does not the death of a relationship make - UNLESS it's all the relationship has to stand on.

See, the thing is, romantic love by itself isn't enough. I grant that. You also need respect and friendship. In fact, you need those much more. But romance, while not substantial enough to be served as an entree, makes a lovely appetizer, or even dessert. No, I didn't need my husband to bring me 2 dozen long stemmed roses at the seasonal inflated price yesterday to know he loved me. And he didn't do that. But he did bring me a very sweet card, a small box of chocolates, and make a donation to a food bank in my name, in an effort to share the bounty we have in our lives with those that don't. Now THAT'S romantic.

Interestingly enough, we went to see a play last night that touched on many of these very themes. It was a play about a woman torn between two men who both wanted to marry her. In the end, the realization she came to was that she needed to learn the difference between a dream and a fantasy. The fantasy was the ethereal thing that can never be achieved and keeps you from living your life. But the dream, which she dismissed as being as useless as the fantasy, turned out to be the thing that encouraged her to fly and soar. In my opinion, by endlessly bashing romantic love and tossing it off as frivilous and unnecessary, we squash the dream that love can be. Yes, you need a solid foundation for a relationship to work. But if you work so hard to stay on that solid foundation that you don't allow yourself the moments of romance and whimsy, your feet never leave the ground.

So I hope that those out there who bash Valentine's day as being a sad cultural shrine to romantic love can try to see the other side - that sometimes we SHOULD worship at the altar of romance. And sometimes having an excuse like Valentine's Day does inspire sweet moments of romance in us and in our lovers. We just need to remember to incorporate the other elements of a happy relationship in order for romance not to become the thin ice we tread on as though it alone is sufficient.

2002-02-14T10:32:00.000-08:00

Valentine's Day: I'm sure that most people with a fairly good number of brain cells are at some point today either going to hear a debate or join a debate about the nature of the holiday being presented for our enjoyment today. Romantic day? Crass, commercial day designed by card and flower companies? Appropriated holiday that by right belongs to the Pagans?

I have to admit that the answer, for me, is, "Well...yes." Valentine's Day is a day I find myself having particularly mixed feelings about. Why? Well, the root of the problem is that I am both an incurable romantic and a feminist. I don't like being told when to express my love, and I usually despise anything culturally that revolves around the, "Man must give woman flowers/candy/jewelry or he is in big trouble," motif. (Did I mention how much I hate the entire diamond industry ad campaign?) But, I also ENJOY an excuse to be extra romantic, and enjoy it when my hubby does sweet romantic things for me. And Valentine's Day is usually a great excuse for all of that.

So would I be disappointed if, one of these years, he said to me, "But honey, I didn't get anything for you because I know how you hate commercial holidays"? Well, sure. I tend to be more romantic than he is, so the times I'm most likely to get a romantic gesture from him are on the proscribed days - Valentine's Day, anniversary, etc. So in a way, I feel like if he misses one of the "assigned" romantic days, it's a sure bet I'm going to get less romantic stuff later on, too. But then I remember how unfair "assigned" romance is, and how much I hate it in theory.

So suffice to say that I don't need an assigned day to tell my honey how much I love him and appreciate him. I try to do that every day. But I'm also not above giving him silly Valentine's Day gifts, and hoping some flowers and/or chocolate might be coming my way, too.

2002-02-14T08:21:00.000-08:00

They'll be here for us: The news over at File Thirteen is that the cast of Friends has reupped their contracts for next season. I have to admit, I have mixed feelings about this. Granted, this last season has been much better than some of the previous ones, and I've been enjoying watching the show a great deal. But things were really getting setup nicely for the show to have a great ride into the sunset at the end of this season, and I like neat and tidy endings - especially in the genre of romantic or situational comedy. It almost feels like an opportunity wasted. I also wonder just how long the appeal of the show can last, and I'd hate to see them wear out their welcome mid next season and go out with a whimper.

But, as Larry points out, at least it keeps the cast too busy to start churning out lots of movies. Their history is pretty ugly on that count.

2002-02-13T12:38:00.000-08:00

And the award goes to... The Oscar Nominees are out. I'm surprised to find how few of this year's nominees I've seen. The only movie nominated in the major categories that I've even seen is "The Lord of the Rings". And going to the minor categories only adds "Harry Potter" for me. So I'm not sure how to even guess as to what I think should or will win.

I'd like to try to get to a few of the movies before the awards happen, at least in part because there are some mighty fine looking films out that I haven't seen yet. The ones I'm most interested in are (in no particular order):

Ali

A Beautiful Mind

Mouline Rouge

Iris

Gosford Park

Amelie

There are other nominees I think I SHOULD be interested in, but find myself not horribly motivated to go see:

In the Bedroom

Mullholland Drive

Black Hawk Down

Memento

I'll see how many of them I get to beforehand. If I don't manage to see any new ones, I won't bother with Oscar predictions, since it would all be just guessing. Though I guess there is some fun to be had in that.

2002-02-13T07:52:00.000-08:00

The Lure (or lack thereof) of the Golden Arches: I was in New York City last night for a meeting until after 10:00 PM, meaning that by the time the train got back to Connecticut and I made the drive home, it was after 2:00 AM. So I'm too exhausted just yet for commentary.

So again, for your reading pleasure until the caffeine kicks in, I offer you Larry Simon and his thoughts on McDonald's, for those of you not already regularly reading his site. (For those of you not already regularly reading his site, I highly recommend it.) If his guess about McDonald's being the American food, then this opinion will certainly get him carted away by the FBI. It was nice knowing you, Larry.

2002-02-11T11:34:00.000-08:00

We don't need no stinking security: This is a great column by Joe Soucheray about the overabundance of security we've enjoyed since September 11th. An excerpt:

"It isn't working. George W. and John Ashcroft and the rest of them can talk all they want about the need for homeland security, but so far the only homeland security that has actually worked is us. Normal citizens, obviously alerted to the worst since Sept. 11, have done exactly what might be expected of them. The days of the hijackers are over. They can try, but they aren't going to get very far, because we have awakened from a long and apathetic slumber that we were encouraged to take by an industry and a federal regulatory agency that instructed us to sit in our seats, follow orders and possess no weapons.

Boy, were we ripe for an attack."

And what I found especially true was this point:

"Slowly but surely, the dirtbag continues to enjoy his victory. Here is a guy working out of a cave and using a 1952 walkie-talkie and he has managed to bring the largest, freest country in the world to its knees pleading for more safety.

I don't want more safety. I want to get back to that freedom part."

Sounds reasonable to me.

2002-02-11T11:23:00.000-08:00

You're mocking me, aren't you? By way of Instapundit.com a mock blog from the Weekly Standard, intended to prove the point that bloggers are self-referential and silly. The punch line? Bloggers everywhere are linking to it and laughing at it. What they had in mind? Who knows.

2002-02-11T11:16:00.000-08:00

New airline security? A theory from over at InstaPundit.Com about the new airline security - inconvenience the passengers so much that they are all super angry and ready to attack the first terrorist they see. He might be onto something...

2002-02-11T09:24:00.000-08:00

I got the interview!!! I just found out that I will be getting an interview to The Actors Studio Drama School. This is so huge. I know this may sound crazy, but I'm completely calm and confident now. I interview really well. In fact, I can't at the moment recall anything I have interviewed for, and then not gotten. Obviously, I'm hoping that streak continues.

2002-02-11T07:41:00.000-08:00

Monday morning funny: I'm not quite awake enough for commentary, heated or otherwise, this morning. I had terrible insomnia last night, and I'm trying desperately right now to keep my head off of my desk.

So until I wake, enjoy this piece of humor by Larry at File 13. As per usual, something written by Larry is a guaranteed chuckle. This one is no exception. It got me a little more awake this morning.

2002-02-08T10:13:00.000-08:00

More on the pledge to New York: This NY Times article talks more about Bush's visit to NYC, and his pledge of $20 billion.

One thing in particular about this article bugged me. Since September 11th, the word "bipartisan" has been bandied about so much that it's hard to hear someone from D.C. speak these days without adding that word to the rhetoric. Yet at a re-election rally for Governor Pataki, Bush said the following:

""It also makes sense for New York State to have a governor whose phone calls will be returned from the White House," Mr. Bush said."

It doesn't seem very "bipartisan" to me to threaten New York City with losing access to the White House if they have the audacity to elect a Democratic governor. I sure hope they don't buckle under the threat. And I sure hope Bush thinks twice about failing to return phone calls to a state of his union that needs his help.

2002-02-08T10:08:00.000-08:00

Tommy Thompson responds: A response from Tommy Thompson to the NY Times about prenatal care. He claims the new regulations have nothing to do with an abortion debate. If that's the case, why redefine the word "child"? Why not just add regulations for pre-natal care? Is that so difficult?

2002-02-08T10:05:00.000-08:00

Another budget opinion: Another NY Times editorial about the budget, and the problems arising because of lack of presidential and congressional discipline when it comes to deficit spending.

For me personally, I'm just glad I'm young and just starting out. Hopefully that sound you hear, of the economy poised for a massive crash, won't hit me too hard.

2002-02-08T09:57:00.000-08:00

More (bad) budget news: In today's New York Times, we get news of another broken promise by Bush as it relates to the current budget. This time it's NYC getting the shaft. Seems that Bush is letting everyone know it's tough all over, while still spending money like there's no tomorrow on tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy) and defense budget items no one else seems to think we need.

In addition, the editorial reports this piece of depressing news:

"But did you know that the administration has budgeted $300 billion less for Medicare than the Congressional Budget Office says is needed to maintain current benefits — never mind add-ons like prescription drug insurance? It's unclear whether the administration actually intends to deny medical care to retirees, or is simply trying to hide the sheer scale of the looming fiscal disaster."

I think the editorial got it about right:

"But my guess is that it comes down to sheer arrogance. Buoyed by those approval ratings, this administration simply believes that its former promises don't matter. After all, don't people know that there's a war on?"

I'm very interested to see how many more broken promises it takes to start toppling those approval ratings. Hopefully not too many more.

2002-02-06T14:10:00.000-08:00

Britney Nosferatu? One more piece from Through the Looking Glass today. Interesting guess as to just what that Britney Spears Pepsi ad during the Superbowl had to say. Pretty funny.

2002-02-06T14:08:00.000-08:00

The hits just keep on coming... Turns out George Bush just nominated a candidate to the U.S. Court of Appeals who, among other distinctions, fought the 1965 Voting Rights Act, criticized the one-person-one-vote doctrine, and wrote a Law Journal article calling for legislation to ban interracial marriages. Great.

Thanks (I think) to Charles Dodgson over at The Looking Glass for pointing this one out.

2002-02-06T14:04:00.000-08:00

Why I'm not a Libertarian: By way of Chuck over at Off the Kuff, this interesting piece in which Charles Dodgson explains Why he's not a Libertarian. I think he makes some damn fine points.

I can remember vividly getting into veritable shouting matches with someone I knew in college who was a self-described anarchist about "the evils of government". Much of it involves things touched on in Dodgson's piece, like the argument that it's okay if private entities have screwed up regulations, because we have a choice as to whether or not to participate with them, so we should get the government to stay out of it and let private entities handle themselves. *shudder* You think, perhaps, that the folks over at Enron might agree with that?

I understand the desire to decrease the bloat that our government has become. However, when you start shouting for reduction in government presence on a sheer matter of principle, in my opinion you're headed for dangerous waters. Sure, it'd be nice if the gummint didn't get its fingers in so many pies. But be careful what fingers you start cutting off before being sure you're not better off with them there.

2002-02-06T10:12:00.000-08:00

The Dilemma... I can't decide if I'm brave enough to see the new Britney Spears movie Crossroads (2002). Now, those of you who know me are probably asking yourself, "But, Amy, why would you even WANT to. Ugh." Well, see...I know one of the leads. Anson Mount, who is playing Britney's boyfriend, is the high school best friend of one of my college friends. I met Anson at said college friend's wedding, where Anson was the best man. Then Anson came to visit me at my home in Hartford when our theater did Corpus Christi, a play in which Anson played the lead in the original New York production. It turns out that, besides being STUNNINGLY gorgeous and pretty talented, Anson is also just a really nice guy. Everyone at our theater was just blown away by how down to earth he was, and how genuine he was, and how much interest he took in the workings of our little theater, despite already being many light years beyond that in his own career. He attended our show's cast party, and was just a joy to spend time with.

So, since then, I've already set the precedent of seeing a fairly bad film simply to see Anson in it. I watched Urband Legends: The Final Cut just because I knew I'd see Anson. And depsite being a pretty bad teen horror flick, he was very entertaining in it, and definitely the most talented in the cast. So it wouldn't be the first time I braved a bad film to enjoy the thrill of saying, "Hey, that guy in the movie, I know him." Yeah, it's silly, but it's fun.

Perhaps I'll take the same road I did with Urban Legends and wait for the video.

2002-02-06T10:00:00.000-08:00

My, how times have changed: An article on Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D. Houston), and her continual efforts to be the most difficult politician to deal with.

This is a woman who prides herself, in political speeches anyway, on being a champion of the people, and a spokesperson for the downtrodden. But the article details such acts of entitlement as using a goverment car and driver for the one block commute from her apartment to the Capitol building, to her repeated beligerent attitude towards airline employees who don't treat her with the reverence she seems to think she deserves. Apparently, after the heightened security implemented after September 11th, allowing only ticketed passengers in the boarding area of airports, Lee called the FAA to ask for a dispensation from the rule for her "entourage". They turned her down.

As the article said:

"According to the aide — who quit after just a month and a half on the job — Jackson Lee shrieked, "You don't understand. I am a queen, and I demand to be treated like a queen.""

Maybe someone should let Ms. Lee know that in this country, we don't have royalty.

2002-02-05T13:04:00.000-08:00

Agressive accounting at the White House: Great editorial in the New York Times aboutBush's Aggressive Accounting. Specifically, it talks about how the war on terrorism is being used as an excuse to cover up the massive accounting error of offering huge tax cuts based on projected surplus, and being used as an excuse to not correct the problem.

Best line in the article: "No politician hoping for re- election will dare to say it, but the administration's new motto seems to be "Leave no defense contractor behind.""

2002-02-05T08:11:00.000-08:00

One myth, minus the mystery and magic: Scientist have now discovered that the Oracle at Delphi sat on a geological fault that released hydrocarbon gasses, meaning it's likely they weren't magical, they were just high. I don't know if this means you assume their visions were any less valid. I mean, heck, they told that Oedipus fellow to stay away from his mother, and just see how THAT turned out. Interestingly enough, the article says that this is at least some proof that they WEREN'T charlatans just making up stories, as was once believed.

Oracles? You decide.

2002-02-05T08:04:00.000-08:00

What if... What if the author of Lord of the Rings had been someone other than Tolkein. Like, say, Lewis Carroll or Ian Fleming? The Alternative Lord of the Rings offers some possibilities. Pretty hilarious.

2002-02-05T08:01:00.000-08:00

The human cloning debate reaches an all-time intellectual high: Thanks to Instapundit for the links to, first, this letter being passed around, petition style, in which the Center for Genetics and Society urges senators to ban cloning. It's followed up by this reply, in which
Shamans urge tribal chiefs to ban fire.

Funny stuff.

2002-02-05T07:48:00.000-08:00

Airport security at its best: Silent Planet passed along this Airborne Adventure, truly a testament to the effectiveness of all the new air travel regulations. I can't decide if the proper response to this one is to laugh, or to never buy a plane ticket again.