News and Amusements

Today's topics:

• Counting down the news
  
• Stuck on the toilet (aka News of the Weird)
• A tornado and a Superfund site in Picher, OK
• Documentaries in the comfort of your living room
• Learning from the radio
• Learning from a funny book

Lots of intriguing news events to discuss lately, just in time to drown out the never ending presidential election. Of course, some of the news stories are sad or discouraging (cyclones, earthquakes, tornadoes, repressive government refusal of outside aid, rising domestic prices, etc). But other news is just plain weird. I like to take it all in.

I've grown fond of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Granted when I watch I tend to do so in fast forward, skipping most of the longer segments (I'm not generally a fan of ratings-focused network news; for more balanced, in-depth current events reporting and analysis I strongly recommend you check out The NewsHour and The World). But Olbermann is always free with his opinions in an amusing way, he genuinely seems to care about important issues, and he does raise some good points. And his Worse, Worser, Worst Person of the Day bit at the end of the news countdown is hilarious (albeit often anti-Bush Administration). It's not must-see TV, but it's certainly entertaining. Recommended to liberals and news junkies.

[Warning: I have maybe a higher than average tolerance for graphic--but nonviolent--stories, and others might not like the visual imagery involved in this next paragraph. There, you've been warned....]
Do I live in a weird-news bubble? No one I've asked seems to recall the last time a woman was found on a toilet and had to be removed from the home with outside assistance. Apparently the boyfriend of this 35-year old woman left her sitting for two years because she wanted to be left there. Apparently the boyfriend has no sense of his own. She was there so long that her skin had overgrown the seat (which I can easily imagine, having had a similar skin growth experience with earrings when I was a kid, but that story is for another time). Think that's bad? The latest toilet story involved a 90-year old woman who died on the toilet and was left there for 2 months! Yuck. And it's not like she lived alone; since the woman was on the only toilet in the house, the household had to use a bucket (you can guess for what). They left her there because they thought she wasn't completely dead and they could pray her back to life. What?!

I was struck by this odd double-play of toilet victims, but apparently no one else I know was. Of course, I thought absolutely everyone within hearing distance of a TV or radio would have learned about the Austrian man who fathered 6 kids with his allegedly missing daughter (if you don't know the story I won't share it here). And yet my own brother hadn't heard. And David hadn't heard of it until I told him. (As I was relating the story to my brother, his jaw stuck open in shock, he looked to David who just said, "Oh it gets worse.")

Apparently I am drawn to news of the weird in a way that is not shared by those closest to me. I will thus keep further wacky news to myself and dedicate the remainder of today's posting to more erudite offerings, like public radio, documentaries, and explorations of religious life, in the hopes that I am somewhat redeemed in your eyes. :)

If you've read about the tornado in Picher, Oklahoma, then you probably also read that the town is a Superfund site. There was an interesting documentary about Picher called The Creek Runs Red, which aired on the public television series Independent Lens last fall. It tells the story of the birth and death of Picher's now-we-know-it's-toxic lead mining industry, and the government's recent efforts to empty the area of inhabitants. Many people chose to stay, either for financial or personal history reasons, and the filmmakers do a good job of highlighting the complexity of toxic cleanups in established communities, especially poorer ones. Ah, environmental justice.

The Creek Runs Red is just one of many fascinating documentaries aired on Independent Lens, and I would recommend many others for your viewing pleasure. David and I enjoyed the endearingly simple King Corn recently, even though most of its lessons about modern agricultural production can be learned just as well elsewhere. I was really touched by Hard Road Home, which shows the work of a New York City organization started by an enterprising ex convict dedicated to helping other ex-cons get on with productive lives; alas, as you might expect, it's not all happily ever after. Or check out Knocking to learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses (some of your assumptions about them just might be wrong). I coud go on and on; the series has showcased years' worth of award winning documentaries on every subject under the sun. I highly recommend it.

Fresh Air with Terry Gross has been particularly good lately. It's a daily radio program that airs on NPR stations around the country. Terry (or her guest host) invites writers, musicians, actors, filmmakers, journalists and other observers and creators of interesting stuff to talk about their work for 20-40 minutes. Last Thursday on Fresh Air the guest was Adam Liptak, who contributes articles to the New York Times series American Exception, comparing the American justice system with practices around the world. While the topic could easily turn divisive (we're worse, they're better, and vice versa), Liptak is actually quite guarded in drawing conclusions about which are better approaches. Our way of policing crimes is different from other places, he points out; what I got from him was that it's more interesting (and useful) to contemplate "Why?" and "To what end?" than to assess anyone as better or worse. Back in March, after the whole Obama-Wright brouhaha erupted, Terry spoke with several insiders in the field of Black Liberation Theology, the brand of sermonizing Wright was associated with before becoming something of his own brand. Far from offering an excuse for Wright's words, Dwight Hopkins (talking to Terry on March 31) did contextualize some of them, and provided intriguing insight into the religious and cultural roots of traditional black church sermons. I recommend both of these programs, and Fresh Air in general (subscribe to the Fresh Air podcast, or just listen to the pieces on history of Black Liberation Theology and comparative justice).

I make a point of decompressing my mind (figuratively, not literally) before going to sleep, and amusing bedtime reading is essential in that process. Lately I'd been plowing through a lot of cheesy fiction before hitting a cheesy-fiction wall; then the heavens opened and my inbox notified me that one of my several new book requests at the library had been fulfilled, after months of waiting. The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible is so amusing it's become not only bedtime reading but also start-the-morning-with-a-smile reading as well. In this non-fiction, diary-style book, A.J. Jacobs describes his one-year mission to live the rules of the Old and New Testaments as faithfully as is reasonable in modern times. Some rules were easy to adhere to (and contemplating them offers a nice cultural history lesson, plus a healthy dollop of appreciation for modern living); other rules however were virtually impossible to avoid breaking (and the author's descriptions of trying are some of the funniest moments of the book). The Year of Living Biblically does start a bit unevenly, but I think that once you get the gist of what he's doing and why, it's really quite a nice combo of enlightening and entertaining. Recommended to anyone interested in religion and modern life.

Moving On

I've been struggling with moving on lately, letting go of things that occupy me (like the inefficiencies of the Stanford emergency room, but that's part of a story for another time). Sometimes not being able to let go is a bad thing (and in my case very annoying to David). But sometimes not wanting to let go is a natural thing, and quite reasonable.

David and I are finalizing our plans to move down to Los Gatos. Unpacking and settling into our newest home will be good, but the locale puts me a bit beyond easy driving range to get to my brother and his family. Soon I will have to say goodbye to my thrice-weekly Tae Kwon Do appointments with my nephew. I hope he looks back on our increased time together these past few months fondly. I know I will.

Common Sense for VP

Editorial cartoons might not change anything, but they can make the frustration a bit less painful. And it's always nice to know I am not alone.


So, what's a fiscal conservative, social liberal to do these days? Any good ideas out there for making government more efficient (or at least less wasteful)? Where is Dave when I need him?

Hope lives

I've heard various people remark that whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination will get their vote. This tends to come from likely Democratic voters anyway, so it's not really a surprise. It's a nice time to be a Democrat, and most loyal party voters are content with either candidate. Usually I like having two good options, but in this case I'm just not so happy to have the choice.

I am one of those who rather irrationally dislikes the presidential-hopeful version of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and I don't like feeling this way. I respect her background in various public welfare type organizations. Her experience in Washington during Bill's presidency, although peripheral, is useful. She's probably a fine Senator (arguable, but it's a relative matter anyway). I adore the idea of breaking this political glass ceiling and electing a female President. And I think Bill would be a better first spouse than Michelle (though I do not feel as others do that having him back at the White House will make any meaningful difference whatsoever).

There, I've ventured into the realm of irrelevant, so I might as well go further. I can't put my finger on it, and maybe I'm just in a cranky mood every time I hear her speak, but Hillary's speeches and quips and debate replies tend to bug the crap out of me. I should capitalize that last bit, I feel it so strongly. I cannot listen to her speak without getting really irritated at some point. Don't misunderstand me--I don't hate her or object to her just out of hand. I agree with her stand on many issues, and give her credit for some really great answers. Too often, though, she seems phoney, opportunistic, lacking political integrity (yes, there is such a thing), a tad whiney, and I would trust her sticking to what she says only as far as I could throw her (which ain't that far).

But would I vote for her come November? Given the option of her versus McCain I'd probably have to go with her (he has a few pluses, but not in enough areas to outweigh the minuses). Anyway, I am hoping to not have to make that choice. I have lived with hope for a very long time. A few more weeks and months won't hurt me.

Deal with it

Too often research findings are intriguing but muddling. How often have you heard about a new study that makes you realize what you previously thought is in fact wrong? How are we supposed to deal with being told we're wrong, or worse, possibly wrong? I say go with door number 3.

Go play this online simulation game and test out your success with decision making using 2 goats as undesirables and 1 car as desired outcome. It's called a Monty Hall problem in honor of the Let's Make a Deal host (and his use of 3 doors, behind one of which is the best prize of all).

Now read this news story which explains how in a 3-choice situation where you've already made your decision, if you are shown one of the other 2 outcomes (and it's undesirable), then you will have better odds of getting what you wanted by switching to the last available option. The more you play, the closer you get to a statistical fact: You have a 66% chance of choosing the desired outcome by switching after being shown location of one undesired outcome.

[W]hen you stick with Door 1, you’ll win only if your original choice was correct, which happens only 1 in 3 times on average. If you switch, you’ll win whenever your original choice was wrong, which happens 2 out of 3 times.

Fascinating, right? The trouble is, the above three-door situation presents something of a false choice. In reality our choices are not all equal. Maybe we chose door number 1 because 1 is our lucky number; when shown that door 2 yields a bad outcome, changing away from 1 to 3 in order to get better odds is dependent upon the depth of my feelings toward both 1 and 3. Our real-life choices tend to be based on a long (and often undefined) list of desires and assumptions. Plus, the items behind the so-called door aren't necessarily static, but evolving and dependent upon their own complex set of decisions. So maybe the Monty Hall problem is just an entertaining mindgame to challenge our assumptions. At the same time, such research still illustrates the fact that committing to one choice isn't always the best way, even after being shown that an alternate path didn't work out (just because the other guy failed does not mean you have a 50-50 chance).

Have you ever worked with someone who would not back down from their decision? Chances are you've done it yourself, too, even when you feel in your gut that it might not be the best option? Why after making decisions do we often tell ourselves, "I made the right choice. It just didn't work out this time," even when there is evidence to the contrary available? The answer: Because we want to feel good about ourselves in order to keep going each day. Plus, we aren't in the habit of looking for evidence to the contrary of our beliefs. We all just want to feel that we are OK, so we seek out or create justifications and affirmations of our decision. (Read more about the concepts of irrational escalation and cognitive dissonance.)

No big deal, right? This is fine when you're talking about the decision to buy a shirt that turned out to be really tacky (and you don't realize it till months later, after you've worn it in public countless times). But this is not fine when you're talking about bankrupting your family because you buy multiple tacky shirts and instead of adjusting your shopping habits and tastes based on inklings of a problem backed by outsiders' negative feedback, you just go out and buy more or different. There's a matter of scale.

Last year I attended a talk given by retired UCSC professor Elliott Aronson on the subject of his new book, Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts. Aronson, a social psychologist, always has amusingly thought provoking stories to share. In this case he and Carol Tavris were exploring the idea of sticking to decisions, even when faced with evidence that the decision was a bad one, and the very slippery slope of justifying behavior. While such behavior does have its tragic downside (and several chapters of this fascinating book detail the very scary consequences of ignoring counter-evidence), some amount of self-justification is a necessary and useful part of human nature.

The mind wants to protect itself from the pain of dissonance with the balm of self-justification; but the soul wants to confess. To reduce dissonance, most of us put an enormous amount of mental and physical energy into protecting ourselves and propping up our self-esteem when it sags under the realization that we have been foolish, gullible, mistaken, corrupted, or otherwise human. And yet, much of the time, all this investment of energy is surprisingly unnecessary. (pp 216-217)

I'll let you read the book yourself to find out why they argue this to be the case. In the meantime, here's the joke which opened the chapter:

A man travels many miles to consult the wisest guru in the land. When he arrives, he asks the wise man: "Oh, wise guru, what is the secret of a happy life?"
"Good judgment," says the guru.
"But oh, wise guru," says the man, "how do I achieve good judgment?"
"Bad judgment," says the guru.

The authors present some pointed political commentary and are clearly no fans of President Bush's executive management in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the fundamental lessons of Mistakes Were Made are not political at all and ought not be dismissed due to subject matter chosen for examples. (This review does a great job of pointing out the pros and cons of the book.) After all, no one is perfect. :)

Life Lesson 1

Errors are inherent in baseball, as they are in medicine, business, science, law, love, and life. In the final analysis, the test of a nation's character, and of an individual's integrity, does not depend on being error free. It depends on what we do after making the error. (p 235)

Amen to that.

Alrighty then, escalation of commitment to bad choices is obviously not a good thing, but how are we to know we're doing it? Hint: Self awareness is a good thing. Another hint: Ignoring criticism and surrounding yourself with "Yes"-people is not a good thing. Maybe I didn't need this book to teach me that, but it's a provocative read and a good tool for self examination and improvement, which I think is another good thing.

Life Lesson 2
There is no way to always get the car; you're going to end up with a few goats. Deal with it, learn from it, move on. And don't forget to tell yourself, "I am OK," because, unless you are currently under attack by that goat behind door 2, it's true.

Snuffed Out

Today I went to San Francisco to watch the Olympic Torch Relay. Here's a list of things I encountered there:

• A lot of people waving gigantic Chinese national flags.
  
• Train cars and vans full of pro-China attendees, most carrying Chinese flags.
  
• Several arguments between small groups of Chinese nationals and frustrated middle aged American men.
• Chants of "Li-ar! Li-ar! Li-ar!" as anti-China/pro-Tibet protestors passed by.
• Counterchants, intended to be said just ahead of the above, of "Chi-na! Chi-na! Chi-na!" (To clarify, this last was said by the anti-Chinese government protesters, meaning presumably the pro-China ones were claiming honesty for their own government.)
• A fair number of ridiculous and superficial barbs hurled from both sides.
• More Tibetans (or Tibetan-looking people, I didn't stop to ask or question their ethnicity) than I will likely ever see in one place again, unless I someday travel to Tibet.
• Various pro-Turkmenistan and pro-Burma demonstrators, as well as many combinations of other anti-China message promoters ("China out of..." followed by a list, for example).
• A lot of "stop the genocide" sort of generic protest signs (to which I wanted to ask just which genocide they were referring exactly, because really, this is a rather big request to be just bandying about inefficiently).
• Countless "Another [fill in the blank] for a free Tibet" and "China: Listen to the Dalai Lama" signs, some alongside anti-Dalai Lama signs.
• A rather well organized and thoroughly peaceful multi-generational group of green-clad Save Darfur demonstrators, standing along the road behind professionally made banners and large clusters of green balloons.
• A megaphoned message from an unseen individual several hours later and a mile up the road, announcing, "Attention Darfur people, we need everyone to go to Justin Herman Plaza. Do NOT let the torch reach the closing ceremony!"
• One of the cheesiest cover band performances ever, on stage at the planned site of closing ceremony.
  
• Pot smoking, incense burning, whistle blowing, and meditation bell chiming.
• Three naked men standing in the middle of the Embarcardero engaged in some sort of peaceful political commentary which I missed because I was trying to get a picture of them all lined up and kept getting blocked by others trying to do the same.
• A family of balloon artists cranking out red and yellow hats decorated on front with Olympic rings.
• More reporters than I have ever seen at any event in my life, and I've attended some pretty large or at least significant events.
• A lot of people apparently there on this beautiful day to just peacefully and happily watch the torch and surrounding events, not cause any sort of a ruckus. (How much of a ruckus can you cause in a suit on your lunch hour or while carrying a toddler?)
• A lot of people waiting all along the planned route--but also room for even more people (it was never difficult to find an open space along the barricades to easily view torch passing, that is, if the torch had ever passed it would have been easy enough to get a front row view).
• A lot of confusion about where the torch was and when it would be appearing.
• A gorgeous, lively day spent along the waterfront of San Francisco.

What I did NOT see at today's torch relay:

• A litter problem
• Violence
• Out of control crowds
• Concessions of any kind (and I'm not referring to the food variety)
  
• Exertion in attempting to dissuade crowds from gathering along or entering the proposed route
• The torch (sigh)

Another gorgeous day

Two days before heading up to San Francisco for the Olympic torch relay, I went to show off the town to Jason, visiting from Houston. We saw all sorts of interesting stuff (like the most expensive residential block in the US and cool pics of historic Cliff House), but what did I get a picture of to show for my day? Me standing in pitch black at base of Coit Tower. So you'll just have to take my word for it: It was a gorgeous day.

Meaningful tangents

One thing I enjoy in big election years is when interesting and discussion-worthy topics come to the fore, bringing opportunities for regular folks to educate themselves and engage in thoughtful conversations. Alas such topics tend to arise as part of something being taken out of context and blown up into a near-scandal for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to bandy about, and the discussions people have are too often focused on who's right, who's wrong, and other superficialities. Still, I like that the possibility of thoughtful discussion rises with intriguing pseudo-scandals.

Today just such an opportunity was explored beautifully from WHYY/NPR's Fresh Air. The program featured several speakers describing, explaining, and contextualizing black churches and the person at the center of the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright debate. Absolutely fascinating. The second speaker, Dwight Hopkins, was particularly thought provoking in his comments. I highly recommend listening to the broadcast all the way through (about 40 minutes, as I recall), or reading more about the program. (You can also listen to Fresh Air episodes for free as a podcast using iTunes.)

You might have noticed my Change Congress label in the sidebar. This is part of a campaign led by law professor/free culture advocate/concerned citizen Lawrence Lessig which I encourage you all to get to know, and is another example of something good happening this election year. Lessig considered and then declined possibility of running for Congress here in the Bay Area, but he is still very much interested in making that elective body a better functioning, less money/influence-distorted than it currently is. What an idea, huh? I love it! Anyway, Lessig always gives interesting speeches, most of which are shown or discussed on his blog. A great intro to Lessig's signature presentation style and an all around interesting talk given recently can be viewed and commented on here.

Now go forth and educate. :)

Moving up

It's been a while, so I wanted to check in. I can't say anything exciting has been going on in our lives, but we have certainly been busy with mundane stuff--cars, houses, family.

Our Volkswagen Golf died quite suddenly last month, just after its 7th birthday. Luckily the car went kaput within a mile of our house and at the end of David's 60-mile daily roundtrip commute. The experience has taught me to replace the timing belt for an interference-type engine (such as a turbo) anytime after 50,000 miles when you have a thousand dollars to spare, regardless of whether the manufacturer says car has reached time to replace it or not. Much advice was sought about what to do with the dead car. We faced as little as $2,000 in repairs, more likely $5,000, and possibly a whole new engine. David was out of town a lot right after the Golf died, so we got by on one car and a very nice loaner from dad for a while, but last week we had to bite the bullet. When we did the math on fix/keep/sell/trade-in, we decided trying for good trade-in could be best for us, and I began negotiating with car sales people (always a pleasure). Amazingly, VW offered a fair value for the Golf, and we moved up into a silver 2008 Jetta SE.

It's basically the Golf with a trunk, (heated) leather seats, Tiptronic option, built-in iPod thingy (not the actual name), and a 6-disc CD player. It's like we just remodeled the car. Alas, with 10,000 miles per year, Jetta (to be named) will be used on a scheduled-mileage basis only. Now knock on wood that our 1996 Subaru (which has 171,000+ miles on it) keeps going strong. (Have I mentioned lately how much I love my Subaru? And that I am also welcoming to newcomers? I don't want the new car to feel unwelcome.)

Our move-up plans for the car were unintended, but moving up in residences is a planned event. These past few months most of my weekend afternoons (and several weekday ones) have been dedicated to scouting out houses in Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo. Moving 20 miles north will do wonders for David's commute, and allow us to move David's grandfather in with us. We've been looking primarily at 3 bedroom, 2 bath houses, but that turns out to encompass a very wide variety of options (and a dizzying array from slums to mansions). Not knowing these three cities all that well, it's taken a while to figure out what's a good deal and what's less important to us than others (realtors are all gaga over San Carlos and its schools, but I find the houses there overpriced and small, and the area rather pretentious).


Last weekend we went to the open house for a place in Redwood City that seemed to fit all our basic wants/needs: it's affordable, has ground floor bedroom, is in a good neighborhood, has a rental unit, and has two living spaces (living room, family room); plus it's got a lovely yard. Today we went for another look, dragging family along with us for a second opinion. I have not set my heart on it, so others' honest feedback will not shatter me. Take a look at 402 Upton and tell me what you think. If you are really interested, I can share the ups and downs of the property, according to our opinions and the inspector's report.


In family history news, I have made contact with another Eugeni in the world (he might be the reason for my doppelganger; we didn't get personal enough in our chitchat for me to question his wife's naming rights). Anyway, I've not uncovered any known connection between Eugeni clans yet, but it's exciting to learn anything new for my genealogy work. Then last week I identified a long lost relative, though only her first name.


My great grandfather Costanzo had a niece named Gina who sent postcards from Italy between 1917 and 1920 (my cousin showed me these postcards, not understanding who they were from). Gina would be my first cousin twice removed. Hopefully this info becomes useful in connecting to distant relatives at some later date. Maybe I'm even related to Barack and Brad. Now there's some motivation to keep up my genealogy searches. :)

Time Wasters

Today's Fun Stuff post brings you another recommended website which is basically useless but will keep you entertained on your lunch hour: Neatorama. Like BoingBoing ("A directory of wonderful things"), Neatorama features commentary on and links to unusual things around the Web. I was hooked when I saw references to MythBusters and the Bathroom Reader. Neatorama's links are posted by a cadre of contributors, most of whom maintain blogs elsewhere. Among their recent contributions: things it's (generally) impossible to do with your body, odd museums worth visiting, and John Doe names from around the world.

Traffic Jams

I love the Freakonomics blog and I love Scientific American Frontiers with Alan Alda. Today the two converged (cue heavenly light-and-sound show). Both have now discussed the cause of many needless traffic backups: the speeding and braking habits of stop-and-go drivers.

If someone driving in front of you brakes, most people tend to hit their brakes. Then the car behind brakes too, and this keeps going way back, until the slowdown is way behind the location of the original reason for braking. Basically, by braking in traffic you are perpetuating and probably extending a slow spot. The solution? As Alan Alda discovered nearly a decade ago and the Freakonomics guys reported on today, it's best for all concerned if drivers would maintain constant but slower speeds and not brake at every brake light in front of us. Try to always maintain a bit of distance in front of you (if someone cuts into the space, ease off gas a touch to create a distance again).

Change your driving habit to emphasize slow and steady instead of constantly accelerating and then having to brake. Take your foot off the accelerator to maintain or maximize the gap between you and car in front of you. You will get there just as quick, if not faster, your car will have less wear and tear, you'll be less frustrated, less likely to rear-end someone, less likely to be rear-ended, and you will not be contributing to pointless traffic jams. Sounds like an all around win. Now go spread the word!

In other news...
I was elated tonight to hear one of my fave bands, stellastarr*, played on a national commercial. Their song "My Coco" is used on an ad for the new Fox show The Return of Jezebel James, starring Parker Posey.

Dazed and Coughing

Friday night I went to see the San Jose Ballet perform Swan Lake. It was fine, costumes were lovely (though I hated the bad guy's full get-up), music was good, crowd was supportive, etc. Alas, I also spent the evening fighting an insane desire to clear my lungs. I thought it was latent asthma, a reaction to dry cleaning chemicals, something unusual like that, but many hours later, after I'd used up half of David's stash of cough drops during the performance, I could not deny that it was much more mundane--I had the flu. The following few days are a blur. I tell you all this in advance of my next comments, because I cannot attest that the views expressed herein are not simply the result of a prolonged fever haze....

Yippee for me that I was lifelessly bundled on the sofa this rainy day weekend, because both Michael Clayton and Harry Potter arrived to visit me!

Contemporary drama Michael Clayton fit my mood particularly well, with its stark stylings and straightforward suspense. The eponymous character, played by George Clooney (as if you didn't know), is a fixer with a law firm. Among other problems on his slate, he's trying to rein in a colleague whose manic behavior threatens an important case for agribusiness client U/North. The movie's cast is solid, and though primary story centers on Clayton, others are given depth enough of their own (Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, and Tom Wilkinson are, as always, very good). In hindsight it seems like dialogue was minimal, action was too, but it felt like a lot was going on. Lucky for me, because I couldn't have handled more complexity than this at the time. The pace is deliberate, the clues reinforced thoughtfully without a hammer, and there's not a whiff of sappiness. Recommended for patient drama fans.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix kept me entertained while my teeth chattered--that's saying something, right? Here Harry is a moody, lonely, self absorbed teenager. Back at Hogwarts after an isolated summer and averted expulsion, Harry believes that Dumbledore is ignoring him. He's personally witnessed the return of Voldemort, but few believe him. And he knows the new Defense Against Dark Arts (DADA) instructor is tormenting him (Imelda Staunton is fantastic as the evil Umbridge). All Harry wants is to help out with the growing underground movement to fight, which is what he eventually does by breaking the rules and training an army of students in DADA (no, not dada). Good stuff, right? Okay, the scene changes were too jarring in many cases for my addled brain, and I was lucky to have read the book so I could fill in many explanatory details that were left out, but the adaptation seemed overall very successful. And the look of this movie was wonderful, much better than most of the previous incarnations (Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban laid the groundwork for a darker Harry Potter world quite nicely). I also liked casting of Luna, minimal appearance of Hagrid (sorry, Hagrid fans), and flashback footage which added cohesion to series. Recommended as a must see for followers of story, and a much better entry for those new to the series than the last film.

Finally, I would be remiss without mentioning the Oscars. I thought this year's clothes were unexceptional (see what I care about?). I discovered that Ryan Seacrest is pretty funny. I thought Jon Stewart--who I like--used too many political jokes (hello, this is a movie awards show. Mix it up!). Amy Adams singing is a million times more charming than Kristen Chenoweth singing. My favorite moment was when the folks who starred in the lovely Irish indie film Once won for best song. Seriously, after that, I didn't care who won. And that's not just the Nyquil speaking.

Follow my rules

Not that you asked, but...
I am by nature a rule follower. From childhood on, when I've observed rule breaking, I have tended to get rather holier than thou in my response. Fortunately with age I have developed a healthier co-attitude. I now recognize that sometimes rules are dumb or ill-conceived, and that common sense dictates a different--and reasonable direction. I also see where it's in breaking the rules that big breakthroughs are occasionally made (though this last one is very risky, and I am also by nature risk averse). Anyway, my righteous indignation still burns deep, and occasionally an issue arises that brings the fire to the surface.

As my friends and regular readers know, I am an Obama supporter. I'd like to think that my reaction to the Clinton campaign's comments and actions with regard to the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries has little to do with partisanship. I don't honestly know. What I do know is that the continued sound bites on the subject are irritating me, because I see someone breaking the rules for their own political gain.

Here's the deal: the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida moved up their primary election dates without permission of the Democratic National Committee (the whys and hows of this is subject for a whole 'nother blog, but suffice it to say, this is as it has always been--state groups report to national). The DNC told Florida and Michigan Dems that if they chose to go ahead and hold a primary, no delegates would be used from their states. The various candidates at the time of this decision were given option of removing name from Michigan ballot as part of the DNC's ruling. Almost all did, presumably in the name of party unity, including Edwards, Richardson, and Obama. At the time, Clinton was the clear front runner and she opted not to remove her name from ballot. No such request was made of the candidates in the case of Florida's ballot, although they did agree to basically not campaign there. When primary election day came, Clinton "won" (56% in Michigan and 50% in Florida). Florida included Obama and Edwards on the ballot, who received 33% and 14% of the vote, respectively. In Michigan, it was a choice between Clinton and three likable-but-very-minor candidates; given this slate, 40% of Michigan Democrats selected Uncommitted.

What irks me is how Hillary Clinton has continued to pull for the two states' delegates to count in the Democratic Convention (even today). I totally understand where any competitive person would want to gain an edge, but in this case I think it's the wrong approach. Argue that the decision not to count delegates is a silly way to "punish" states for moving up primary date without national's permission--absolutely! Talk to people in the state (now that primary is over) about their worthiness of being heard in general--all true! But don't try to change the rules after the fact.

Mad Libs!

Remember Mad Libs, those silly fill-in-the-blank stories we used to play as kids? Did you know you can play online? There are lots of versions, but I'd recommend these two: Check out "Mad Libs on the web" for three classic wacky insert-a-word stories (watch out, once you start it won't let you stop until you give every word required). Or go visit Mad Glibs. Mad Glibs has the usual generic stories, like a personal ad or nursery rhyme, as well as pop culture--new lyrics for Smelly Cat or Hakuna Matata--and even some classic lit. Perfect lunchtime entertainment.

Poesia - Poetry

A bit of poetry for all you enamored Valentines out there. It's by Pablo Neruda.

You are here. Oh, you do not run away.
You will answer me to the last cry.
Cling to me as though you were frightened.
Even so, at one time a strange shadow ran through your eyes.

Now, now too, little one, you bring me honeysuckle,
and even your breasts smell of it.
While the sad wind goes slaughtering butterlfies
I love you, and my happiness bites the plum of your mouth.

How you must have suffered getting accustomed to me,
my savage, solitary soul, my name that sends them all running.
So many times we have seen the morning star burn, kissing our eyes,
and over our heads the grey light unwind in turning fans.
My words rained over you, stroking you.
A long time I have loved the sunned mother-of-pearl of your body.
I go so far as to think that you own the universe.
I will bring you happy flowers from the mountains, bluebells,
dark hazels, and rustic baskets of kisses.

I want to do with you
what spring does with the cherry trees.

Nice, huh? It's from "Every Day You Play" in Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair. Here's the complete poem in Spanish and translated into English.

Happy Valentine's Day pursuits to you and yours. :)

Titles

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:

Her Grace Lady Michelle the Talkative of Pigotts Sty,
Most Noble and Honourable the Prohibited of Withering Glance

For a random title generator, I think it did eerily well. Get your own peculiar aristocratic title.

Last night David and I huddled around the laptop to watch The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters on DVD (Why watching on a laptop? Because we are currently in possession of not one, but two non-functioning DVD players. Maybe Tomminy Tivo intimidates them?) Anyway, King of Kong starts off kind of slowly, and early on it just seems like a history of the arcade game variety of the Uber Geek species. But then it turns into a near-infuriating but compelling human drama centered on two men's claims to World Champion status on the game of Donkey Kong. And my description still doesn't do justice to the oddness of the flick. Naturally I recommend it.

Torture

Today's one of those days when I understand people who take advantage of every opportunity to deride President Bush and his administration. I'm not a Bush fan, but I'm also not a fan of fighting fire with fire or strict party loyalty, thus I tend to maintain (I hope) a respectful tone. But further confirmation that our stupid government did in fact use waterboarding on prisoners (after saying they had not) has upset me--and driven me to call our elected government "stupid". Clearly I am worked up. :)

It's not the news leaking out that upsets me; there have been plenty of previous stories on the subject, though not all were widely shared or lent credibility. What upsets me most are that we the United States of America (a) knowingly and willingly tortured people in our custody, and (b) reneged on the Third Geneva Convention (read text here), an honorable and important international agreement, thus contributing to our declining world image. This is an upset which has been burbling for a while. Argh!

Here are a few articles on Bush administration's history of alternately protecting and denying our use of torture, including water boarding:
* Human Rights Watch called on Bush to account for possibly ordering torture, Dec 2004.
* Bush could bypass new torture ban - Boston Globe, Jan 2006.
* Top US official denies 'torture' - BBC News, March 2006
* White House denies Cheney endorsed 'water boarding' - USA Today, Oct 2006

And a few comments on Bush Administration's discussion of torture:
* Eugene Robinson vented his frustrations over Bush's refusal to reject the use of torture in September 2006, in the Washington Post.
* Tom Engelhardt of The Nation blogged in Sept 2006 about how the media and Bush administration obfuscate (my assertion) torture through manipulation of language.

[T]he general rule of thumb of the mainstream media...refers to such "techniques" as "abuse" or "abusive practices" but not usually as "torture." This, it seems to me, is a media "technique" that just might be worth correcting. Torture is regularly named as such only when the President denies that we do it or that he ordered it....

I won't go beyond calling our present government stupid because it is election day, the time for us to exercise the privilege of voting. (You may be surprised to discover voting is not a right granted by the Constitution). We have a civic responsibility to take charge of the direction we want to see our government headed in. The fewer people get involved, the more those who are involved can yield power. I leave you with a few cynical tidbits to contemplate on this Super Tuesday.

What luck for the rulers that [people] do not think.

The victor will not be asked afterwards, whether he told the truth or not.

No amount of genius spent on the creation of propaganda will lead to success if a fundamental principle is not forever kept in mind. Propaganda must confine itself to very few points, and repeat them endlessly. Here, as with so many things in this world, persistence is the first and foremost condition of success.

All of the above are Hitler quotes, by the way. It's time to think and VOTE.

Puppies!

I'm all about the fun stuff today. At some point during the Super Bowl you should switch over to Animal Planet. Why? Because Puppy Bowl IV is on! At any given time, eight puppies crowd a miniature football field strewn with play toys and a water dish (including hidden water-dish-cam) and all you have to do is watch and try not to squeal and coo too much.

The New York Times wrote about this adorable, growing hit:

There is commentary, by Harry Kalas, the legendary N.F.L. and Phillies broadcaster, who in this case says things like: “He’s at the 20, he’s at the 30! O.K., now he’s back at the 20, the 10.” There are M.V.P. and viewer’s choice awards. And there is a referee to call the action, such as it is, and deal with what the show refers to as “puppy fouls.”

“The puppies are running around, playing with squeak toys, mock footballs — whether they realize it or not, some of them do make touchdowns,” Ms. Toporoff (Exec Producer) said. Still, no points are kept.

And censors need not worry: there are no wardrobe malfunctions during the kitten halftime spectacle, in which 15 or so cats climb on and play with toys. This year’s version is more sparkly, with falling confetti and a background of silver streamers. “We took more, like, a burlesque approach,” Mr. Schechter said.

Puppy frolics, burlesque kitties, and pointless scoring. I am so there.

P.S. At one point there was a Bernese and a Westie on the field together. I took it as a good opportunity to see how our imaginary (aka "sometime in the future") pets would get along. Oh dear. Let's just say the Westie (named Jackson) ran many rings around the Bernese (named Colt). Jackson was such a rambunctious player that he won the favor of the fans who voted him #1 in the Viewer's Choice MVP.

Doppelgangers

Me and David a la South Park:



Make a little South Park version of you here. Too fun!

Endorsements

By the title you might think I am going to head off on another political tirade. But you would be wrong. This is a consumer endorsement. And lest that statement make you wonder whether you've somehow begun reading another blog instead of mine, I would reassure you that you're safe with me.

Borrowing from the Bard...
I come not to bury occasional consumerism, but to praise it.

I often tirade against consumerism, but really what I loathe is blind consumerism or economic materialism--buying stuff because it's cheap and available, because you think it will make you happy, not because you need it. Those of us who call mainstream society home are encouraged through emotionally loaded advertising to believe we do indeed need lots of stuff. I am as susceptible as anyone to the clever marketing appeals (even people like me are marketed to, which cracks me up). What is an advertising-skeptical, wannabe back-to-nature type to do? Running away and hiding doesn't sound all that fun (I'd miss my family and my Tivo amusements, among other things to be named later). My solution is to consciously purchase products that are good quality, good for me, and do so in a minimalist way that I think is good for all of us. If you are a conscious shopper, too, then I have a few recommendations.

Some of the products I use and would recommend to others are commonly found. Egg Beaters can be used for a quick morning scramble--such as with Morningstar Farms vegetarian breakfast links--or used as the coating for French toast; my other breakfast fave is oatmeal, preferably using Bob's Red Mill thick rolled oats. For bubbly occasions I adore Martinelli's various sparkling ciders. Others of my favorites are not so easily located in stores, such as indulgences like Kodiak Cakes' Big Bear whole wheat brownie mix (someone agrees!) or Mother's Natural Peanut Butter Bumpers cereal. I'm terribly sad when a product I love disappears (such as happened with Veggie Pockets, made by the Hot Pockets people). Thankfully I am rewarded on occasion when good natural products gain a foothold in grocery stores everywhere, such as happened with natural peanut butters (Smucker's even make a handy stirrer now!) or the Annie's line of mac-n-cheese (check out the Shells & Alfredo or for a real throwback-to-childhood treat, the Bernie O's).

But I posted today to share my endorsement of a dishwasher detergent: Cascade 2-in-1 Action Packs with Dawn. I've read reviews that point to the expense, the need to handle them with dry fingers (this technology actually won an award), and inability to measure out smaller loads (it's one size fits all), but the cleaning power is never disputed. These suckers give me a clean dishload like no other detergent I've used. And since I am a sale-coupon combo shopper, and I always wait for a full load anyway, the price was not an issue for my initial 90-pack tub. You might point out that I was manipulated into buying in the first place (ads and coupons are quite timed, I realize), but the end result in this case was discovering a product that works extremely well. That is a good reason for product loyalty, IMHO. Love it!

So my end message is reminiscent of the adage to students about studying smarter not harder. Don't buy bigger, buy better. Or maybe it works better this way: It's not how much you buy, but how well you buy. Clearly marketing isn't my thing. :)

P.S. Check out this fascinating article on product loyalty entitled, "Consumers mistake familiarity with superiority". And if you've never heard of the anti-commercialism group AdBusters, then go check 'em out now. The spoof ads are worth viewing, even if you don't agree with the group's agenda. And finally, I encourage you to contemplate simple living.

Leaner pork

Have I mentioned before how much I love the movie Dave and its idyllic depiction of a pared down governmental budget? Yeah, maybe a few times. Anyway, I cling to the dream of a clean budget. Today comes news from the Bush administration I can get firmly behind. It's a happy Monday. :)

President Bush previously signed into law the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. The bill, coauthored by Senators Coburn, Obama, Carper, and McCain, required the creation of a website (USAspending.gov) for regular people to identify budgeted recipients of federal funding (above $25k). Funny how my political interests come together, eh?

Learn more about pork barrel spending (aka "earmarks"):
* An obviously anti-pork barrel viewpoint can be found at Porkbusters
* Wikipedia's intriguing definition and history of the pork barrel
* Check out the encyclopedic SourceWatch/Congresspedia entry on the above law

14 Feb UPDATE: Washington Post reported today on the 2007 earmark securing habits of this year's top Presidential candidates, in "Candidates' Earmarks Worth Millions." Notice I said top candidates. Maybe you're always suprised come voting time, but there are in fact more than two parties in this country. Check out this list from Project Vote Smart of all the people who formally put their name out there as candidates for President. Wow, that's a long list.

Reality Lite

If you're heading out for a movie in the theaters currently, I would recommend Juno, or one of several other films I have yet to see but which I am certain are good (There Will be Blood, for instance). I'd have to assess your cinematic tastes before unequivocally recommending National Treasure: Book of Secrets, but I shall try to give it a fair review here: it's an absurd adventure movie starring Nicolas Cage which I inexplicably enjoyed. Want to know more? Read on....

Starring the same people as the first National Treasure (Nic Cage, Jon Voigt, etc.) but adding guests Ed Harris and Hellen Mirren, NTBS is a fantastical adventure tale featuring the off-limits sections of popular tourist spots: Mount Vernon, the Library of Congress, Buckingham Palace, and Mount Rushmore (so even if you don't enjoy the rollicking storyline, you could stay for the scenery). All these places are visited en route to finding a legendary city of gold.

What allowed me to enjoy the first film was a timely suspension of disbelief. Director Jon Turteltaub seems to have banked on those "don't ask, don't tell" blinders this time and made it all a bit more fun for the viewers. It's an average movie overall, but good enough for a rainy Sunday with friends. Sometimes it's nice to just sit back, relax, and forget about reality for a few hours.

Stimulating Humor

What a perfect fusion of my recent comments!















(Click on image to see it bigger.) For more of Sheneman's work, go here.

Editorializing

Not that you asked, but...
I love editorials, whether officially sanctioned editorial board pieces, letters to the editor, or political cartoons (such as by Tom Toles and Pat Oliphant).

Here is a nice example of an informative editorial piece, one which I'd encourage potential Democratic voters to read. The New York Times has endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. Why do I recommend you read an article endorsing Hillary? Because it is a good example of the informative nature of editorials, it is well argued, and it includes much praise for my preferred candidate. :)

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image.

On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two.

It's the less major issues, like adherence to machine politics, that do it for me, but I'll leave that argument for another day. Regardless of my issues with the Clinton campaign, I am very excited that the Democrats overall have such a decent crop of candidates this year and that the primaries, although too expensive for my tastes, are at least getting people across the country involved.

You may now return to your regular Friday frivolity. :)

UPDATE: I realize now that op-ed is the more accurate label for the news articles I recommended. In this opinion piece in the Jan 27 NY Times, Caroline Kennedy says that she had never before been inspired by a candidate like people did during her father's campaign. She supports Barack Obama's bid for presidency.

The Bluest Eye

Today's lesson: Experiments should never be undertaken without careful preparation.

In the news: This article leads me to believe that some of the adults involved in carrying out a well known, provocative classroom exercise didn't plan well enough to make it a lasting lesson, which is quite a waste. What the school in Idaho did was based on Jane Elliott's eye color discrimination experiment. In the original classroom activity, students were divided along eye color lines, then one group was treated as superior and the other inferior. Simple, right? The results are imaginable and yet horrifying.

There are obvious ethical concerns for anyone who participates in such an experiment (hence the need for careful planning, including a thorough debriefing). But you don't need to participate in order to learn something from it. If you have not heard of the eye color experiment, or have forgotten its bleek but important lesson in human nature and discrimination, check out the Frontline piece, A Class Divided. It's the story of how Elliott devised and carried out her bold lesson in discrimination with third graders in Iowa after the King assassination. The page includes a link to watch the program.

Other powerful and controversial social experiments that I encourage all to become familiar with include Milgram's study on obedience and authority (or read the Wikipedia entry here), and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison study which uncovered similarly fascinating findings on situational behavior.

Stimulating

A rambling soapbox comment on helping the economy. I will clean it up later....

As happy as I am to see Congress acting fairly quickly and cooperatively on an economic stimulus proposal, and I recognize that such a thing could have a positive impact, I have concerns about how the household tax rebate will be spent.

I like the parts of the proposal that focus on helping businesses expand (a peek at the plan). But the personal rebate part of the solution leaves me wondering if we've forgotten part of the equation. I understand that if even half of us ran out and spent or invested all of the couple hundred bucks we get, the economy would feel a poke. Like a jump start or defibrillation, maybe a household cash infusion would put things back on track and ready to chug along. But maybe we'd be propping up a dying entity. Sometimes the only real cure is not a jump start, but a new battery. I see no new batteries in our future.

The United States national debt, according to the Treasury Department's own calculations is over 9 trillion dollars. Our current balance of trade (exports versus imports) means we are dependent on other countries for most of the tangible stuff we buy. The most recent figures (November 2007) show we imported $730 billion dollars' worth of stuff more than we exported--in one month. Check out the value of our imports from China over the last few years, or any of the other countries we trade with. I'm not a big fan of growing increasingly dependent on others; a little dependence is nice, too much and we become hostages. (Um, heard such arguments about foreign oil dependence, anyone?)

I'm no financial genius, but doesn't it make a difference what people spend money on? The rebate plan seems tied to the idea that most people will spend the money they receive, rather than save it (here's insight into how the 2001 rebate was spent). Fine, I'll leave that be. But if we all run out and spend it on cheap clothing for our kids, we might be defeating the purpose. Maybe what we ought to do is encourage this temporary windfall be spent on good quality, domestic (or balanced trade nations') services and manufactured products.

Before you head out to spend your rebate at American stores like Wal-Mart, consider the source country for anything you consider buying (check the inside label or box--where was it made? And don't assume groceries are domestic. Even agricultural products come from overseas nowadays).

Your spending sends a message; consider the quality and nature of the business you give money to before you turn the funds over. Support buying local, and building it better (rather than encouraging the creation of more cheap crap). Balance out some imbalances, if only slightly. Not all domestic spending is created equal, and not all that is manufactured in the US is good quality. Just a few things to think about as you spend your rebate.

Instead of buying unnecessary kitsch cranked out in a sweatshop far away or poorly constructed clothes made close to home, why not use part of your rebate to invest in auto maintenance and a few American made cloth carrying bags. Then, next time you shop for knickknacks or a loaf of bread, you can can return home in a car that burns less oil carrying your purchases in something other than a plastic environmental choke hazard. See, you can boost our domestic economy and help the environment at the same time! (For plan to work you must keep your own carrying bags with you, and stop accepting the plastic bags they give out at store. You can do it.)

Michelle's suggested ways to spend rebate:
* Buy several cloth carrying bags for carting home groceries and other purchases (next day, deliver your accumulated plastic bags to a recycling bin like those in front of some grocery stores)
* Do necessary or preventive auto maintenance (can reduce reliance on oil products and prolong life of your car)
* Buy 1 or 2 products from American manufacturers, such as non-trendy, well constructed clothing, shoes, or furniture (next day donate some older clothing/furniture and check out second hand store for a few additional purchases)
* Cover cost of an hour without pay to volunteer your time with a community organization
* Purchase higher end domestic appliances that reduce your energy or water consumption
* Cover cost of an hour without pay to spend quality time with partner or kids

I like my idea and plan to promote it until someone can show me evidence that it wouldn't help. I figure how much damage could it do to encourage domestic spending?

It frustrates me that the fiscal stimulus idea phase seems to have ended with the rebate and business tax credits. What is lacking is the leadership to get a secondary message across. "Here's money, now spend it wisely. And by wisely I mean XXX." Is it wrong to expect our chosen leaders to advise us? Why are politicians so afraid to lead? And why do we let them get away with it? Maybe we know less than they do about these issues. And maybe there are well paid special interest groups controlling the message in their favor. Hmm, I may be on to something here. :)

This is a good time to remind us all that politicians are elected, and that eligible voters--whether you register and vote or not--are responsible in many ways for the direction this country takes. I cannot beg you enough--PLEASE inform yourself and take positive action. Here's a good reference for contacting politicians. It includes a lookup feature to find your Congressperson, good tips on most and least effective methods, as well as how you should address various elected officials.

Learn more about our trade deficit and debt
* Economic Policy Institute on Debt and the Dollar, 2004
* Brookings Institute on Foreign Holdings of US Debt, 2007
* Business Reference primer on Balance of Trade, what it is and how it affects economy

Seconds

Luckily for me, coming in second place has never lessened the value of something I truly value and enjoy. (A particularly useful sentiment for a second-born child, eh?)

I've spent some time recently volunteering for the Barack Obama campaign, calling into Nevada to check on likely caucus participation. You probably saw how that turned out. But did you know that in the end, Clinton could come away with 1 fewer national delegate from Nevada than Obama? Yet another lesson in not declaring victory before the work (of war, an election, etc.) is truly over.

As someone who rarely gets in on the first round of anything, I appreciate that some things get better with time (yes, this is undoubtedly self serving). As a child of the 70's and 80's, I grew up on music of the 60's and 70's, possibly the best era for proving that good music stands the test of time. My habit of finding beloved tunes after the initial frenzy died down continues well into adulthood. I developed a little obsession with the band The Killers at least a year after their song "Somebody Told Me" saturated the alt rock/pop airwaves. Apparently no one told me. I've "discovered" a number of fantastic albums recently, all of which were released two or more years ago. Where have I been? Off happily catching up on music a few years older, no doubt.

Second hand does save money. I am one of the multitude who rarely goes to the movie theater anymore, saving myself mucho dinero. With rare exceptions, I find most of my film satisfaction in the comfort of my own home for 17 bucks a month (I love you, Netflix). Apart from the occasional impatience this brings when I miss in theaters a highly touted movie months away from DVD release (though the theater-to-disc release span is decreasing), this is an excellent deal. So why treat these second-release flicks like secondhand citizens when it comes to my movie reviews? A terrible oversight on my part. Here you go...

Recommended Rentals
Foreign
* My Best Friend is a cute-but-awkward French buddy movie starring veteran actor Daniel Auteuil.
* Once is a sweet Dublin-based film featuring good folksy tunes throughout, written and performed by the two leads.
* Tipping the Velvet, based on a novel about lesbianism in Victorian England, is a fantastic quirky modern costume drama which aired on the (obviously not US-ratings board controlled) BBC.

Documentaries
Note--each of these domestic docs caught my eye but has its flaws and frustrations
* Jesus Camp is about young Evangelical Christians in the Heartland. Left me depressed, which was surprising, because usually religious freedom is a big thing for me. But people are presented without much outside commentary, which I liked.
* Boys of Baraka relates the experiences of inner city Baltimore boys sent to Kenya for 2 years of boarding school. Left me wanting to learn more about the school, though not necessarily in support of it. Made by the same women who made Jesus Camp (a fact I only just now realized).
* No End in Sight focuses rather pointedly on Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq. Newsy, provocative telling of a frustrating, tragic series of events.

Thrillers
Note--these two are fine, but not great.
* The Lookout is the story of a brain-injured rich kid who attempts to put his life back together by falling in with some shady new friends. (Side note: star Joseph Gordon-Levitt looked to me so much like Heath Ledger it was creepy.)
* Breach was interesting, more for its insight into Robert Hanssen spy case than anything else. One great thing about DVD format is possibility of including extras; this one offers 60 Minutes piece about Hanssen.

And lastly, there are several television shows which I catch the second time around simply because it's impossible for me, living in the US, not to (well, legally). PBS or SciFi channel might have introduced you to the following, which are available on DVD:
* Doctor Who is an oft-cheesy British sci fi show with a long history. At home you can read up online for backstories to fill in what you don't understand.
* The Vicar of Dibley is a 1990's British sitcom about a single, chocoholic female vicar serving in a small town populated by oddball characters. After regular series ended, several special episodes got made, such as the Dec 2006 show where vicar gets married.

Barackomania

Need I say that I was happy with the Iowa Democratic caucus results? I might only add that Obama's speech afterwards was lovely.

I know you didn't do this for me. You did this -- you did this because you believed so deeply in the most American of ideas -- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it. --Barack Obama, January 3, 2008

Lovely, indeed.

Excitement

Here's my holiday rundown, for those interested....

We had a nice holiday with our family. It was uneventful but filling. Tasty foods seem to have been particularly prevalent in our house recently, with leftovers being heaped on us as we enjoyed tailgating/babysitting/cold-fighting leftovers or a good shared meal with friends or family followed by the other party leaving town. Thus Italian food, Indian food, pizza, chili, ham, and more ham crowded the refrigerator after months of spaciousness. I loved that our holiday dinner with my dad featured ravioli and a green frosted cake (both of which we inherited). I didn't make cookies or candy this year. instead my own contribution to the holiday food haul has been an homage to my recent obsession with Omega-3's and fiber, in the form of a yummy trail mix I made to give as gifts, consisting of nuts, dried fruits, and dark chocolate. Mmm. I think good food makes up for lack of excitement any time, which probably says a lot about me.

We seem to have cemented a new Christmas tradition these past few years where we watch whatever DVD I got, right after David's family eats goose and I eat whatever else is on offer. I think The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou started the trend, or maybe it was Arrested Development. I know last year we watched Amadeus. Repeatedly. This year it was The Color Purple. A much longer standing tradition continued the evening before at my place with the viewing of White Christmas. David and my mom rolled their eyes at my exhilaration over the prospect, but I don't care. I love that movie. I also love Miracle on 34th Street (Natalie Wood is so cute), and It's a Wonderful Life but I missed both this year. At least I saw one holiday movie, that's what matters most. I had no shortage of other holiday media though; David had no fewer than five South Park holiday episodes stacked on Tivo at one point, and we had the holiday specials for The Vicar of Dibley from Netflix. That and the peppermint Peeps we had with hot chocolate meant a quite fun Christmas Eve, I'll tell you. Seriously, aren't you jealous? Actually, the most exciting moment on Christmas came when we nearly got run off the road by a Hummer en route to my mom's. That kind of excitement I can do without. I'll stick with having a marshmallow in my cocoa, thank you.

New Year's Eve is one of those times when we are supposed to manufacture excitement, but I've never been one to follow tradition, more less be associated with excitement. The most fun I can recall having at New Year's in the past 20 years was a dinner party we put on back when we were still in college. It was good fun, but the memory is fading. Not that I've done much to top it. One year in Texas we went to a movie that started at 11, ensuring we'd actually be awake at the New Year. Last year we played Guitar Hero at Tara's, which was quite fun, but not particularly festive. Then there was the millenium year, spent with Tara and friends in a rented house in Lake Tahoe. Sounds good, right? Except that two members of our party (my brother included) had recently been to the emergency room, and two others had medical conditions preventing their participation in much revelry. We watched each New Year around the world take place as we waited for word on the second hospital patient. While I suppose we could have seen our own West Coast midnight as a renewal of sorts, instead I was too tired and sad to care. A few years later we spent another New Year's Eve day in the Tahoe hospital after my brother had a rather spectacular sledding accident. We spent that New Year's packing our stuff for a hasty return drive home. these are my New Year's memories. So is it any wonder that it isn't my favorite holiday?

Tonight I'll probably be watching something on Tivo when the calendar flips, drinking Martinelli's, definitely, and possibly waking David up to let him know he can go to bed. My mother accused me of being quite unexciting, which I can't argue with. I'd rather be happy than exciting, I suppose. For some reason (and I'm sure you are drawing more conclusions about me as I say this), I can't imagine myself as both. C'est la vie.

Happy New Year to you all, whatever you are doing to entertain yourselves tonight.

Gynopower

Okay, these two movies might not seem likely candidates for a women's rights convention, but I am thrilled nonetheless to recommend them as they feature wryly clever, modern, female-centered storylines featuring two good young actresses with nary a boobjob or bleachjob in sight. My version of gynopower, perhaps. :)

Enchanted
I saw this being filmed last summer in New York, creating a commitment to see the finished product regardless of its quality. Thank goodness for me that it's thoroughly delightful. From the silly hyper-Disney animated opening to the song and dance routines and predictable romantic ending, Enchanted is adorable. More specifically, Amy Adams as Giselle is utterly adorable and truly the best reason to see the film (much like she was in Junebug). Enchanted also stars Patrick Dempsey as cynical lawyer Robert, a man who simultaneously helps the out-of-this-world Giselle while trying to instill in his own fairytale-seeking daughter a sense of cold hard reality. James Marsden is funny as a stupidly earnest prince in search of his intended. The lowpoints are a relatively poorly developed evil queen/stepmother, a bit of excessive silliness involving the queen's hapless helper, and a ridiculous dragon showdown atop skyscraper. A better ending to this movie might have brought it near perfection as a family friendly romance. Recommended overall.

Juno
Sweet, edgy, and occasionally dark with a romantic spirit a world away from Enchanted and yet remarkably as innocent in the end. Remarkable because it's a film about 16-year old Juno, who becomes pregnant after having sex with her friend and bandmate (played achingly well by Michael Cera), then decides on her own to deliver the baby into the hands of a couple she found in the Penny Saver. The childless couple, played by Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner, clearly aren't as perfect as they seem, but nothing ever is. Over the course of a school year, Juno deals with, as she tells her caring and obviously lenient father, "things way beyond her maturity level". Again, an adorable movie, even more consistent in quality than Enchanted, and again made fabulous by its female star, Ellen Page. Highly recommended.