Small minded parents are ganging on on their former pin-up girl Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana.
The fifteen year old heroine of the eight-year-olds to tweens had the temerity to pose in a more grown-up setting for Vanity Fair. She was photographed by Annie Liebowitz, yeah, she of asking the Queen to remove her tiara as it would look different--and I've seen the photo and it's not porn. Neither is it slutty or titillating.
She's fifteen and becoming a woman. She's got to make the transition or risk being seen as Shirley Temple for the rest of her life or...dare I say it... be written off as a child star.
Give her a break.
Unfortunately, given that she'd predicted to be a billionaire by 2010, her business people and Disney who produce Hannah Montana are back-pedaling in an attempt to save her image and their INVESTMENT. They've got to her parents (who were on set during the photo shoot.) They're trying to deny it and say Vanity Fair took advantage. This despite the fact she posed in a much odder position with Daddy Cyrus. I appeal to them not to risk being hypocritical or forgo their thirst for dollars, admit they liked the photos, that they are artistic and just tell the small-minded they need to get a bloody life.
We'll see. This is America. Almighty dollar rules.
Tuesday
Wednesday
Out, out foul Netscape
It all happened yesterday.
I've been using a Mac for two years now but was terrified to migrate my email from Netscape to Firebird's Thunderbird, a free e-mail application for Mac Users. The Netscape version I've been using is a fossil because I've been terrified to move to updated versions for the same reason--because when I updated to Netscape 7.1 on my PC system, it didn't transfer my email and I had to start over again. The old stuff is still floating in Cyber space. I was terrified because I thought I'd lose all my emails and contact addresses. Maybe a good thing!!
So yesterday, I tried to send an email and the Netscape system kept asking me for my 'out' mail password. And when I punched in my usual password, it wouldn't recognize it. To make things even more aggravating, I was getting emails.
So over an hour later, my interet provider was confounded and couldn't fathom what the problem was.
It's your Mac," she said as a cop-out. "We can't do anything more. Sorry."
Lazy, uninterested bitch!!
With nothing left to do, I installed Thunderbird, waited with crossed fingers and toes as it stated on the screen "migrating files" or something like that. Twenty minutes later, a brand new email layout appeared AND all my old emails were there.
Hooray. So I promptly got rid of the last reminder of my PC days by deleting Netscape. I am now a proud and utter fan of Mac and Firebird and Thunderbird.
Netscape R.I.P
I've been using a Mac for two years now but was terrified to migrate my email from Netscape to Firebird's Thunderbird, a free e-mail application for Mac Users. The Netscape version I've been using is a fossil because I've been terrified to move to updated versions for the same reason--because when I updated to Netscape 7.1 on my PC system, it didn't transfer my email and I had to start over again. The old stuff is still floating in Cyber space. I was terrified because I thought I'd lose all my emails and contact addresses. Maybe a good thing!!
So yesterday, I tried to send an email and the Netscape system kept asking me for my 'out' mail password. And when I punched in my usual password, it wouldn't recognize it. To make things even more aggravating, I was getting emails.
So over an hour later, my interet provider was confounded and couldn't fathom what the problem was.
It's your Mac," she said as a cop-out. "We can't do anything more. Sorry."
Lazy, uninterested bitch!!
With nothing left to do, I installed Thunderbird, waited with crossed fingers and toes as it stated on the screen "migrating files" or something like that. Twenty minutes later, a brand new email layout appeared AND all my old emails were there.
Hooray. So I promptly got rid of the last reminder of my PC days by deleting Netscape. I am now a proud and utter fan of Mac and Firebird and Thunderbird.
Netscape R.I.P
Snippets from Manhattan yesterday
Walking along Third Avenue, two women yakking behind me.
"Well, that was great. We'll have to meet for lunch again soon."
"Yeah, I really enjoyed it. We must."
"What are you doing round August?"
At the Citibank main office on Lexington, I come across a pilot strike.
There were about 100 American Airlines pilots dressed in crisp uniforms and carrying placards and slotting schedules. Apparently, they want more money and shares.
Then further down the street, a picket. I come across some men standing beside a huge (twelve) foot rubber rat. It was a local maintenance union on strike outside their building.
Who would want a rat as a mascot? Hardly endearing or guaranteed to elicit New Yorkers sympathy, I'd say.
A sign of the times--the homeless are beginning to be very visible. At the Port Authority where I board the bus home, there was a man sleeping on the tile floor nearby. As I watched, I couldn't help but wonder what happened in his life that he's now on the streets in the wealthiest city in the world. Unfortunate thing is there's going to be a lot of homeless if the economy keeps gooing south.
And finally, a glimmer the recession may not last as long as some fear. All around the city, there are new highrises going up--and, if the advertising is to be believed--over seventy percent of the new luxury apartments in some of them are already sold.
An eerie sight now presents as one is leaving NYC via the Lincoln Tunnel. As the bus snakes around the ramp leading to I78, one is treated to magnificent views of Manhattan including two shimmering highrises that have been recently erected in mid-town. They resemble small versions of the twin towers and one's thoughts are immediately taken back to that terrible day. I wonder if the architect designed that deliberately or if the building were designed and approved years before 9/11.
"Well, that was great. We'll have to meet for lunch again soon."
"Yeah, I really enjoyed it. We must."
"What are you doing round August?"
At the Citibank main office on Lexington, I come across a pilot strike.
There were about 100 American Airlines pilots dressed in crisp uniforms and carrying placards and slotting schedules. Apparently, they want more money and shares.
Then further down the street, a picket. I come across some men standing beside a huge (twelve) foot rubber rat. It was a local maintenance union on strike outside their building.
Who would want a rat as a mascot? Hardly endearing or guaranteed to elicit New Yorkers sympathy, I'd say.
A sign of the times--the homeless are beginning to be very visible. At the Port Authority where I board the bus home, there was a man sleeping on the tile floor nearby. As I watched, I couldn't help but wonder what happened in his life that he's now on the streets in the wealthiest city in the world. Unfortunate thing is there's going to be a lot of homeless if the economy keeps gooing south.
And finally, a glimmer the recession may not last as long as some fear. All around the city, there are new highrises going up--and, if the advertising is to be believed--over seventy percent of the new luxury apartments in some of them are already sold.
An eerie sight now presents as one is leaving NYC via the Lincoln Tunnel. As the bus snakes around the ramp leading to I78, one is treated to magnificent views of Manhattan including two shimmering highrises that have been recently erected in mid-town. They resemble small versions of the twin towers and one's thoughts are immediately taken back to that terrible day. I wonder if the architect designed that deliberately or if the building were designed and approved years before 9/11.
Tuesday
Inundated Pennsylvania
Help!! Help!!
We are being inundated with ads for Hilary and Barack here in Pennsylvania.
And people who've never put out campaign posters--the ones you stick into the ground--are doing it in legions. Well, maybe not legions, but you get the idea.
It's exciting to be a pivotal state--or is that commonwealth?--but really this is quite ridiculous.
I'm expecting to see Hillary or Obama walking along my road any day, or even that they pop into the 'Y' (Hilary in leotards!) for a quick spin on the elliptical between appearances.
Have to admit I like Barack's logo. It's very fresh, very hip, very 'change'. Hope it's not a fad, though.
We are being inundated with ads for Hilary and Barack here in Pennsylvania.
And people who've never put out campaign posters--the ones you stick into the ground--are doing it in legions. Well, maybe not legions, but you get the idea.
It's exciting to be a pivotal state--or is that commonwealth?--but really this is quite ridiculous.
I'm expecting to see Hillary or Obama walking along my road any day, or even that they pop into the 'Y' (Hilary in leotards!) for a quick spin on the elliptical between appearances.
Have to admit I like Barack's logo. It's very fresh, very hip, very 'change'. Hope it's not a fad, though.
Wednesday
Busy, busy...
I'm currently very busy with the final chapters of the new novel--was going to post this yesterday and then realized it was April Fool's Day--and it's coming in at about 83,000 words. My writer's group have reviewed most of it and have given excellent feedback. Now comes another edit.
Having difficulty coming up with a title as its set in London and NYC--working title is now Big Smoke, Big Apple:A Transatlantic Tale
I want to get it to my agent by the third week of April so he and members of his team can read it and, hopefully, they'll like it as is and it'll go on submission.
Also, working hard at the gym--summer's round the corner after all.
My sister Siobhan and her hubby and kids--well David is not a kid any longer since he's gone off to university--are coming out for a visit in July so that'll be fun. (Do wish David had have gone to the LSE though--I was so excited when he got accepted to do accountancy, which i think sounds boring but then he thinks the same about law--'cos I'd have a place to stay when I visit London.
Having difficulty coming up with a title as its set in London and NYC--working title is now Big Smoke, Big Apple:A Transatlantic Tale
I want to get it to my agent by the third week of April so he and members of his team can read it and, hopefully, they'll like it as is and it'll go on submission.
Also, working hard at the gym--summer's round the corner after all.
My sister Siobhan and her hubby and kids--well David is not a kid any longer since he's gone off to university--are coming out for a visit in July so that'll be fun. (Do wish David had have gone to the LSE though--I was so excited when he got accepted to do accountancy, which i think sounds boring but then he thinks the same about law--'cos I'd have a place to stay when I visit London.
Set them free
This morning on NPR, I listened to some old plummy-accented fart who was once a lady-in-waiting to the Queen give instructions on how women should curtsy to any member of the Royal family. Apparently, the segment was due to the impending visit of the French President and same old fart was in a state of high anticipation as to whether the new President's wife would curtsy or not and, if she did, how it would be effected.
I stopped listening to the mechanics of the maneuver when she got to 'Ladies should place their legs apart...chin up...
Men, apparently, must bow in a way that the chin almost touches the chest.
The only thing she did say that made sense was her aside that the Americans no longer curtsy to members of the Royal family.
Duh!
Why the hell should anyone, even the Brits, curtsy? Isn't it enough that they and the person being introduced shake hands.
I watched Barbara Walters' program on ABC the other night about the Royal family, a so-called reality type show of them at play and work, and the only mildly funny bit was a scene showing the Queen at Windsor Castle leaning over the stair banister in her evening gown to try and see how her husband was dealing with a crisis in getting the head of some African nation into the dining room before she made her appearance.
I have no dislike for any members of the Royal family.They were born into the institution of the Monarchy and they effect their duties no matter how irrelevant in a modern democracy with aplomb and dedication. But that does not mean one can despise the Monarchy and demand its abolishment. It really is time this family was relieved of its arcane duties. The Queen performs no purpose that can't be executed by elected representatives. That way Harry and William can also serve in the British Army in any position they so desire, and I'm convinced they'd be relieved because they are smart and I feel see how silly the whole warped and bloated institution has become. The very fact they speak with 'normal' accents--a deliberate decision on their part--and not with the contorted enunciation of The Queen or Prince Charles might support my conclusion here as they are trying to fit in as much as they're allowed..
Quaint just doesn't cut it anymore.
I stopped listening to the mechanics of the maneuver when she got to 'Ladies should place their legs apart...chin up...
Men, apparently, must bow in a way that the chin almost touches the chest.
The only thing she did say that made sense was her aside that the Americans no longer curtsy to members of the Royal family.
Duh!
Why the hell should anyone, even the Brits, curtsy? Isn't it enough that they and the person being introduced shake hands.
I watched Barbara Walters' program on ABC the other night about the Royal family, a so-called reality type show of them at play and work, and the only mildly funny bit was a scene showing the Queen at Windsor Castle leaning over the stair banister in her evening gown to try and see how her husband was dealing with a crisis in getting the head of some African nation into the dining room before she made her appearance.
I have no dislike for any members of the Royal family.They were born into the institution of the Monarchy and they effect their duties no matter how irrelevant in a modern democracy with aplomb and dedication. But that does not mean one can despise the Monarchy and demand its abolishment. It really is time this family was relieved of its arcane duties. The Queen performs no purpose that can't be executed by elected representatives. That way Harry and William can also serve in the British Army in any position they so desire, and I'm convinced they'd be relieved because they are smart and I feel see how silly the whole warped and bloated institution has become. The very fact they speak with 'normal' accents--a deliberate decision on their part--and not with the contorted enunciation of The Queen or Prince Charles might support my conclusion here as they are trying to fit in as much as they're allowed..
Quaint just doesn't cut it anymore.
Tuesday
The Spitzer conundrum
So Eliot Spitzer is now a part of New York history.
A very spirited debate took place the other night between myself, Lynne of L&L and our neighbors Scott and Jessica.
The issue turned on whether the governor's wife should have stood by his side and been humiliated when he first appeared in public to state he'd done wrong and then to resign the NY governorship.
Lynne and Jessica were adamant that she shouldn't have done it, that she was there in
a private capacity and was being forced by people behind the scene to be there. They freely admitted they were acting from a woman's point of view.
My position was she is a smart, strong woman. She attended law school, practiced as an attorney and made a decision to leave her employment to stay at home and raise their daughters. Thus, she is the one who most probably made the decision to be at his side when he made his speeches of humiliation. There is no doubt she looked extremely pained.
Also, in the professional way she handled herself as the first lady of New York State, she probably decided to act continue to act professionally to the bitter end and appear with him as the spouse of the governor.
There is no right or wrong answer in these situations. What occurs in private between Spitzer and his wife is their business, but I imagine the people of New York probably appreciated she stood there at that moment and regard her very highly as a result.
Another question is Spitzer's conduct. Again, I feel this is a private matter although, given that he prosecuted Wall Street corruption and prostitution during his time as the NY Attorney General and had a 'take no prisoners' mentality, it would have been difficult to overcome the charges of hypocrisy and continue to govern.
It all boils down to the difference in viewpoints between the sexes at the end of the day, I think. While some men are utterly faithful in their relationships, I really do believe that this is not the norm as our society insists. It should not be that surprising to learn that many men get bored with their wives sexually after a period of years and start looking around (and probably vice versa, though I can't speak for women here). I think society should stop having these ridiculous expectations that people stop being attracted sexually to other people once they get married and that their marital sex lives are blissful from that moment onward. It only keeps sex therapists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists and morning show hosts in jobs to try and 'advise' what people have to do to spice and enrich their sex lives when they get bored. Once you are bored, you are bored and nothing will change that. Sure changing position and dressing up might work for a week or two, but let's get real.
Love and sex are not synonymous. They can co-exist, certainly do at the beginning of relationships, but then they diverge as the years pass. One can love a partner and not want to have sex with them. There is no crime or negative judgment to be meted out by society when a spouse admits he or she has become bored sexually but still loves the partner and wants to stay in the relationship. It is adult behavior for the spouses to negotiate these situations and not do (as society expects us to do) which is running to shrinks for a fix and they then advise solutions based on the premise that monogamy is the norm and it is immoral to have sex outside the marriage.
My opinion is no one partner can satisfy his or partner sexually for life. People grow and change and their needs grow and change, including sexual needs. It's as simple as that. A minority of people are happy to be monogamous, but not all. And it's time we accepted that. It's time to accept that it's normal to get bored having sex with the same partner for years and to want to have sex and have sex with others outside relationships. It's time to stop buying into fictions created by societal and religious institutions for the sake of convenience and exertion of authority. The fact that children may or may not be involved cannot be used to support or maintain a status quo regarding human sexuality that is clearly failing. The existence of children and responsibility for meeting their needs must be factored into any conduct decided and agreed by the spouses.
Maybe then, we'll not have this constant parade of people in the media who have to make humiliating speeches when they've been discovered behaving humanely. And that would also resolve the spirited discussions about whether a spouse should or should not be present when humiliating speeches have to be made.
A very spirited debate took place the other night between myself, Lynne of L&L and our neighbors Scott and Jessica.
The issue turned on whether the governor's wife should have stood by his side and been humiliated when he first appeared in public to state he'd done wrong and then to resign the NY governorship.
Lynne and Jessica were adamant that she shouldn't have done it, that she was there in
a private capacity and was being forced by people behind the scene to be there. They freely admitted they were acting from a woman's point of view.
My position was she is a smart, strong woman. She attended law school, practiced as an attorney and made a decision to leave her employment to stay at home and raise their daughters. Thus, she is the one who most probably made the decision to be at his side when he made his speeches of humiliation. There is no doubt she looked extremely pained.
Also, in the professional way she handled herself as the first lady of New York State, she probably decided to act continue to act professionally to the bitter end and appear with him as the spouse of the governor.
There is no right or wrong answer in these situations. What occurs in private between Spitzer and his wife is their business, but I imagine the people of New York probably appreciated she stood there at that moment and regard her very highly as a result.
Another question is Spitzer's conduct. Again, I feel this is a private matter although, given that he prosecuted Wall Street corruption and prostitution during his time as the NY Attorney General and had a 'take no prisoners' mentality, it would have been difficult to overcome the charges of hypocrisy and continue to govern.
It all boils down to the difference in viewpoints between the sexes at the end of the day, I think. While some men are utterly faithful in their relationships, I really do believe that this is not the norm as our society insists. It should not be that surprising to learn that many men get bored with their wives sexually after a period of years and start looking around (and probably vice versa, though I can't speak for women here). I think society should stop having these ridiculous expectations that people stop being attracted sexually to other people once they get married and that their marital sex lives are blissful from that moment onward. It only keeps sex therapists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists and morning show hosts in jobs to try and 'advise' what people have to do to spice and enrich their sex lives when they get bored. Once you are bored, you are bored and nothing will change that. Sure changing position and dressing up might work for a week or two, but let's get real.
Love and sex are not synonymous. They can co-exist, certainly do at the beginning of relationships, but then they diverge as the years pass. One can love a partner and not want to have sex with them. There is no crime or negative judgment to be meted out by society when a spouse admits he or she has become bored sexually but still loves the partner and wants to stay in the relationship. It is adult behavior for the spouses to negotiate these situations and not do (as society expects us to do) which is running to shrinks for a fix and they then advise solutions based on the premise that monogamy is the norm and it is immoral to have sex outside the marriage.
My opinion is no one partner can satisfy his or partner sexually for life. People grow and change and their needs grow and change, including sexual needs. It's as simple as that. A minority of people are happy to be monogamous, but not all. And it's time we accepted that. It's time to accept that it's normal to get bored having sex with the same partner for years and to want to have sex and have sex with others outside relationships. It's time to stop buying into fictions created by societal and religious institutions for the sake of convenience and exertion of authority. The fact that children may or may not be involved cannot be used to support or maintain a status quo regarding human sexuality that is clearly failing. The existence of children and responsibility for meeting their needs must be factored into any conduct decided and agreed by the spouses.
Maybe then, we'll not have this constant parade of people in the media who have to make humiliating speeches when they've been discovered behaving humanely. And that would also resolve the spirited discussions about whether a spouse should or should not be present when humiliating speeches have to be made.
Our special tonight is...
We were out with L&L the other night to see The Other Boleyn Girl--Hollywood and Phillipa Gregory's version of the Henry VIII saga.
Critics dished it, but it wasn't that bad. Granted it lapses into the bodice ripping genre on more than a few occasions but I found it enjoyable. And if Gregory is to be believed, the reason Henry split from Rome is due solely to the strategic planning of Anne in her mission to get rid of Catherine and become Queen.
Afterwards we decided to go for dinner so popped into the local PF Chang's only to be told the wait was two hours. It's a pretty good Chinese restaurant, the food's cooked to order so there's would have been that additional wait after we ordered, but it's not good enough to merit that sort of wait. The reason for such a long wait is because PF Chang's is new to the area.
Off we went to Ooka, our local Japanese restaurant where everyone except Larry ordered Tempura--L&L not liking fish, they ordered chicken while I ordered different kinds of fish.
Towards the end of the meal, Lynne held up something that looked like a bit of sausage skin and said, "What is this? I keep getting it in and it's chewy and disgusting."
We all looked at it intently. "Looks like shrimp shell," Lee said.
"No, it's not," Lynne said. "I had Tempura here before and I can't remember this in it. It's very different."
"Maybe it's something vegetable," Larry said. (a piece of Carrot, broccoli and eggplant done Tempura style had also come with it.)
All of a sudden the penny dropped. When the food had arrived at the table, it was beautifully presented in the shape of a pyramid with a huge onion ring keeping it bound together. The entire arrangement was resting on a base of paper doilies.
"Lynne," I said, "You're not supposed to eat the doilie. That's only for presentation."
"What do you mean?"
We poked about her plate and showed her the last small piece of the three doiles they'd covered her plate with to make it look pretty. Lynne hadn't noticed them because the plate was also white.
At first, when we told the Japanese waitress, she went very pale.
"You sick?" she asked.
"No, we're just showing you what she ate."
Suddenly, she realized we weren't complaining and her face broke into a huge smile. "Very funny," she said. He, he, he, he. "Very funny. You want desert now?"
Critics dished it, but it wasn't that bad. Granted it lapses into the bodice ripping genre on more than a few occasions but I found it enjoyable. And if Gregory is to be believed, the reason Henry split from Rome is due solely to the strategic planning of Anne in her mission to get rid of Catherine and become Queen.
Afterwards we decided to go for dinner so popped into the local PF Chang's only to be told the wait was two hours. It's a pretty good Chinese restaurant, the food's cooked to order so there's would have been that additional wait after we ordered, but it's not good enough to merit that sort of wait. The reason for such a long wait is because PF Chang's is new to the area.
Off we went to Ooka, our local Japanese restaurant where everyone except Larry ordered Tempura--L&L not liking fish, they ordered chicken while I ordered different kinds of fish.
Towards the end of the meal, Lynne held up something that looked like a bit of sausage skin and said, "What is this? I keep getting it in and it's chewy and disgusting."
We all looked at it intently. "Looks like shrimp shell," Lee said.
"No, it's not," Lynne said. "I had Tempura here before and I can't remember this in it. It's very different."
"Maybe it's something vegetable," Larry said. (a piece of Carrot, broccoli and eggplant done Tempura style had also come with it.)
All of a sudden the penny dropped. When the food had arrived at the table, it was beautifully presented in the shape of a pyramid with a huge onion ring keeping it bound together. The entire arrangement was resting on a base of paper doilies.
"Lynne," I said, "You're not supposed to eat the doilie. That's only for presentation."
"What do you mean?"
We poked about her plate and showed her the last small piece of the three doiles they'd covered her plate with to make it look pretty. Lynne hadn't noticed them because the plate was also white.
At first, when we told the Japanese waitress, she went very pale.
"You sick?" she asked.
"No, we're just showing you what she ate."
Suddenly, she realized we weren't complaining and her face broke into a huge smile. "Very funny," she said. He, he, he, he. "Very funny. You want desert now?"
Wednesday
A Clinton Obama ticket, anyone?
Congratulation to Senator McCain. The Republicians have selected and he's now got the blessing of Mr. Bush, which may not be such a good thing given his terrible ratings and the fact we're now in recession according to Warren Buffett. I think only idiots and those politically motivated to deny it still continue to bleat that we're on a slow down, that we are not in recession.
A quick drive through any town in the United States where the huge number of 'To Let' signs in empty stores is a true indicator of the reality. Unbelievable that the surplus we had when President Clinton left office is now replaced with a massive deficit and the dollar is trading at One Euro fifty-one cents. Less anyone forget, when the Euro was 'born', it was regarded as aa weak currency and it traded at about one dollar.
The democratic races last night were terribly exciting and Hillary Clinton to her credit did pull an upset, exactly what she said she was going to do. I am glad as I feel the Democrats really are discussing the real bread-and-butter issues that the next Presidential election will be about. The longer she and Obama campaign, the better for our democracy.
It looks like Pennsylvania will be the deciding state, which is also very exciting. Certainly it is the only large state with a huge number of delegates that's left. Already, Obama and Clinton have opened campaign offices in the major towns, including Bucks County where I live.
It looks like Senator Obama will come under a lot more media scrutiny now and will have to state his policies and positions with absolute clarity now. Taht is a good thing. In the past weeks, I've heard a lot more about Clinton's positions and am still pretty unclear about Obama's.
The best option would be for Obama and Clinton to run on the same ticket, but that will require senior democrats to get them in the same room and thrash out who will be on top. I suspect that's going to happen either before or after the Pennsylvania primary. It has to because Clinton is now unable to mathematically catch up and surpass the number of delegates Obama has in the bag. And Obama's argument that the super-delegates must vote according to how the people of their state voted (and thus secure him the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination) does not hold water because there is no requirement for them to do so. Their duty is to vote for teh candidate they feel can win the general election. Moreover, Clinton has a very strong argument that she has won the IMPORTANT MAJOR states and Obama's wins are in small states--in other words, size does matter.
Of course there's always the matter of Florida. Always Florida. Does the Democratic National Committee reverse itself and allow their vote to be counted in the delegate count? If so, Clinton gets a lot of delegates. I'm sure her campaign's trying to twist arms here.
Some people argue that a ticket with a woman and a black man on it is not a winning formula--that America is not ready. I think it's time to see.
A quick drive through any town in the United States where the huge number of 'To Let' signs in empty stores is a true indicator of the reality. Unbelievable that the surplus we had when President Clinton left office is now replaced with a massive deficit and the dollar is trading at One Euro fifty-one cents. Less anyone forget, when the Euro was 'born', it was regarded as aa weak currency and it traded at about one dollar.
The democratic races last night were terribly exciting and Hillary Clinton to her credit did pull an upset, exactly what she said she was going to do. I am glad as I feel the Democrats really are discussing the real bread-and-butter issues that the next Presidential election will be about. The longer she and Obama campaign, the better for our democracy.
It looks like Pennsylvania will be the deciding state, which is also very exciting. Certainly it is the only large state with a huge number of delegates that's left. Already, Obama and Clinton have opened campaign offices in the major towns, including Bucks County where I live.
It looks like Senator Obama will come under a lot more media scrutiny now and will have to state his policies and positions with absolute clarity now. Taht is a good thing. In the past weeks, I've heard a lot more about Clinton's positions and am still pretty unclear about Obama's.
The best option would be for Obama and Clinton to run on the same ticket, but that will require senior democrats to get them in the same room and thrash out who will be on top. I suspect that's going to happen either before or after the Pennsylvania primary. It has to because Clinton is now unable to mathematically catch up and surpass the number of delegates Obama has in the bag. And Obama's argument that the super-delegates must vote according to how the people of their state voted (and thus secure him the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination) does not hold water because there is no requirement for them to do so. Their duty is to vote for teh candidate they feel can win the general election. Moreover, Clinton has a very strong argument that she has won the IMPORTANT MAJOR states and Obama's wins are in small states--in other words, size does matter.
Of course there's always the matter of Florida. Always Florida. Does the Democratic National Committee reverse itself and allow their vote to be counted in the delegate count? If so, Clinton gets a lot of delegates. I'm sure her campaign's trying to twist arms here.
Some people argue that a ticket with a woman and a black man on it is not a winning formula--that America is not ready. I think it's time to see.
Coming to a mall or town near you???
Heard a fascinating discussion on NPR the other day on the way home from the 'Y.'
Apparently, over in England, many town councils and shopkeepers are installing a 'mosquito' device that emits a high-pitched sound that only people under twenty can hear. The annoying buzz sound quickly scatters groups of loitering teenagers who find it irritating and uncomfortable and thus move away to another spot in town where they can socialize or whatever it is teenagers do these days.
There are now calls to have it banned. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole business--especially since babies (the next generation of teenagers) can hear it as well and may become immune to its sound.
Living now in the US, I've become very aware of the concept of individual freedom--something that admittedly is being eroded currently--so my gut-feel is it isn't right and should be banned. England does seem to have changed through the years because they have CCTVs everywhere, a carryover from the years of IRA campaigns on the mainland that got extended until it got out of control, I'd imagine--which wouldn't be tolerated over here. On the other hand, teenagers can be a pesky lot (pun absolutely intended). They gather in my local town center and shop-owners complain as well.
Maybe the solution is to provide things for kids to do and for parents to act like parents and exert control of their charges in the waning years of their offspring's adolescence.
Anyway, there are calls to ban the Mosquito and I'm sure court challenges will ensue.
Apparently, over in England, many town councils and shopkeepers are installing a 'mosquito' device that emits a high-pitched sound that only people under twenty can hear. The annoying buzz sound quickly scatters groups of loitering teenagers who find it irritating and uncomfortable and thus move away to another spot in town where they can socialize or whatever it is teenagers do these days.
There are now calls to have it banned. I'm not sure how I feel about the whole business--especially since babies (the next generation of teenagers) can hear it as well and may become immune to its sound.
Living now in the US, I've become very aware of the concept of individual freedom--something that admittedly is being eroded currently--so my gut-feel is it isn't right and should be banned. England does seem to have changed through the years because they have CCTVs everywhere, a carryover from the years of IRA campaigns on the mainland that got extended until it got out of control, I'd imagine--which wouldn't be tolerated over here. On the other hand, teenagers can be a pesky lot (pun absolutely intended). They gather in my local town center and shop-owners complain as well.
Maybe the solution is to provide things for kids to do and for parents to act like parents and exert control of their charges in the waning years of their offspring's adolescence.
Anyway, there are calls to ban the Mosquito and I'm sure court challenges will ensue.
Friday
American Zeitgeist
Watching and trying to interpret the American Zeitgeist as we wend our way to the Presidential election is hugely exciting. I was here during the election of Bill Clinton and can remember the sense of unrestrained optimism that eddied around the dinner tables and parlors of my friends. No British or Irish election had ever generated such a sense of expectation times squared, no make that tripled.
It must be acknowledged Bill Clinton did deliver and I have often wondered why Ronald Regan is lauded still by many as the president who swept America to a new prosperity. They forget the heartless policies behind this trickle down economic "success" and forget conveniently that Bill Clinton left this country with a surplus when his time finished. The current administration, conservative it proudly heralds, has spent more than any Democratic administration in memory. Why is this not being shouted from the roof tops? Why are conservative Republicans with a small 'c' not being more vociferous and still leery of Democrats as being the party of 'Big Government?' I can't understand.
But back to the current primaries. It's certain now that John McCain will be the Republican nominee and Huckabee (and Chuck Norris) are now only in the running in order to secure their name on the ticket as Vice President.
I could not vote for him because he is 'out to pasture' on the war, but one thing I truly admire about McCain is his stance on earmarks--favorite wish lists that senators try to slip into legislation no matter how unrelated to their project; in other words pork barrel politics. McCain is right to want to end their use and, to be fair to him, he has not sought any while Clinton and Obama have made use of the practice. Clinton and Obama are silent about that. This must be noted. (It will be interesting to see how the 'affair' with a lobbyist that's been reported by The New York Times plays out, because there's no smoke without fire.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's race is of a very different color. I find myself swinging back and forth, torn between Obama's call for change and Clinton's cry that she has the experience. My gut feel is that an amalgam of the two would be superb. But that we can't have.
Who to choose?
Zeitgeist suggests that Barack Obama has a decided edge and this is conformed by the fact that ex-pats eligible to vote in the primaries have also given him the edge. Americans are angry with the current administration and are clamoring for real change. They don't want talk. They want it to occur. He's a visionary leader--in other words he presents what he believes America wants like say Roosevelt and 'The New Deal', seeking consensus among the competing interests, leaving it for the 'managers' to implement the policies and hold them utterly accountable. Hillary, on the other hand, managers from the 'top down' and gets involved in every aspect. I don't think that works because we've tried that and it didn't work.
Can Obama deliver? This is the elephant in the room. His handling of the nuclear power issue in his own back yard would not seem to suggest he can wield the sort of change Americans are seeking. his bill got diluted and he accepted it; worrying when one considers it was on an issue of health and safety.
Given this, is the question of experience then not more important than the change the direction of this country. Is it experience that is necessary to navigate the ship of state through the shark-infested waters in order to achieve some achievable change.
I don't know the answer. The reservations I have are: Hillary Clinton is NOT talking about change in the way Barack Obama is talking about it and she is not talking about reigning in corporate greed; And Barack Obama, contrary to what he says, may not be able to get sensible Republicans to work with him as is vitally needed for the good of this country in order to achieve the change the country wants desperately. He didn't seem to pass the challenge in Illinois and that worries me. Washington is a meaner, tougher game, one where he could easily be sidelined for four years.
I am also annoyed at her juvenile attempt to accuse Obama of plagiarism because he borrows from the speeches of others. Come on!!! All politicians do that. It is unfitting for a woman of Clinton's caliber and education to resort to such silliness, and the fact she is angering the voters here suggests she is insulting their intelligence. It highlights that she is threatened by his oratory and suggests her campaign is in crisis.
Drop it and move on to discuss your vision, Hilary. Let the people do their job and decide which is the better of the two.
It must be acknowledged Bill Clinton did deliver and I have often wondered why Ronald Regan is lauded still by many as the president who swept America to a new prosperity. They forget the heartless policies behind this trickle down economic "success" and forget conveniently that Bill Clinton left this country with a surplus when his time finished. The current administration, conservative it proudly heralds, has spent more than any Democratic administration in memory. Why is this not being shouted from the roof tops? Why are conservative Republicans with a small 'c' not being more vociferous and still leery of Democrats as being the party of 'Big Government?' I can't understand.
But back to the current primaries. It's certain now that John McCain will be the Republican nominee and Huckabee (and Chuck Norris) are now only in the running in order to secure their name on the ticket as Vice President.
I could not vote for him because he is 'out to pasture' on the war, but one thing I truly admire about McCain is his stance on earmarks--favorite wish lists that senators try to slip into legislation no matter how unrelated to their project; in other words pork barrel politics. McCain is right to want to end their use and, to be fair to him, he has not sought any while Clinton and Obama have made use of the practice. Clinton and Obama are silent about that. This must be noted. (It will be interesting to see how the 'affair' with a lobbyist that's been reported by The New York Times plays out, because there's no smoke without fire.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's race is of a very different color. I find myself swinging back and forth, torn between Obama's call for change and Clinton's cry that she has the experience. My gut feel is that an amalgam of the two would be superb. But that we can't have.
Who to choose?
Zeitgeist suggests that Barack Obama has a decided edge and this is conformed by the fact that ex-pats eligible to vote in the primaries have also given him the edge. Americans are angry with the current administration and are clamoring for real change. They don't want talk. They want it to occur. He's a visionary leader--in other words he presents what he believes America wants like say Roosevelt and 'The New Deal', seeking consensus among the competing interests, leaving it for the 'managers' to implement the policies and hold them utterly accountable. Hillary, on the other hand, managers from the 'top down' and gets involved in every aspect. I don't think that works because we've tried that and it didn't work.
Can Obama deliver? This is the elephant in the room. His handling of the nuclear power issue in his own back yard would not seem to suggest he can wield the sort of change Americans are seeking. his bill got diluted and he accepted it; worrying when one considers it was on an issue of health and safety.
Given this, is the question of experience then not more important than the change the direction of this country. Is it experience that is necessary to navigate the ship of state through the shark-infested waters in order to achieve some achievable change.
I don't know the answer. The reservations I have are: Hillary Clinton is NOT talking about change in the way Barack Obama is talking about it and she is not talking about reigning in corporate greed; And Barack Obama, contrary to what he says, may not be able to get sensible Republicans to work with him as is vitally needed for the good of this country in order to achieve the change the country wants desperately. He didn't seem to pass the challenge in Illinois and that worries me. Washington is a meaner, tougher game, one where he could easily be sidelined for four years.
I am also annoyed at her juvenile attempt to accuse Obama of plagiarism because he borrows from the speeches of others. Come on!!! All politicians do that. It is unfitting for a woman of Clinton's caliber and education to resort to such silliness, and the fact she is angering the voters here suggests she is insulting their intelligence. It highlights that she is threatened by his oratory and suggests her campaign is in crisis.
Drop it and move on to discuss your vision, Hilary. Let the people do their job and decide which is the better of the two.
Monday
Disraeli Avenue
Here's an email I received from British novelist Caroline Smailes, author of In Search of Adam, which is published by The Friday Project and I reviewed in this blog when it released last year because I liked it a lot. (TFP is the same publisher who will publish A Son Called Gabriel in the UK.)
She has now written a novella entitled Disraeli Avenue that deals with the background characters of her debut novel and it's published and downloadable for FREE on the net from today. However, she wants to assist a charity for sexually abused kids--her work deals with this theme--and asks that you consider making a donation if you decide to download the work.
Here's her email:
---------------------
I'm taking a moment to tell you about my new project, a novella - Disraeli Avenue.
Disraeli Avenue has been developed from my debut novel In Search of Adam. This novella provides the reader with an unusual insight into both the incidental and essential characters from the novel, giving a deeper understanding of the part that each plays in the book. Readers new to Disraeli Avenue may find the snapshots of individual lives lived on an average street moving, and compelling. Readers familiar with In Search of Adam may find pleasure in learning more about those involved in Jude Williams' life and will find a redemption of sorts in the final entry from Bill Williams where he reflects on the death of his wife and daughter.
This download is provided entirely free, but we would ask that you consider making a donation to One in Four.
One in Four offers a voice to and support for people who have experienced sexual abuse and sexual violence. Research has consistently shown that one in four children will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18. Society has thus far been unwilling to face up to the deep rooted nature of this problem or the sheer scale of the long term damage it leaves in its wake. Their determined aim is to change this. One in Four UK is a Registered Charity (Charity Number 1081726).
I may add that all of the contributions to the development of the novel (the writing, editing, typesetting, design, cover design, proofing) have all been contributed free of charge. All contributors are acknowledged within the work.
I’m trying to make a difference, to give something back.
All details can be found at The Friday Project
She has now written a novella entitled Disraeli Avenue that deals with the background characters of her debut novel and it's published and downloadable for FREE on the net from today. However, she wants to assist a charity for sexually abused kids--her work deals with this theme--and asks that you consider making a donation if you decide to download the work.
Here's her email:
---------------------
I'm taking a moment to tell you about my new project, a novella - Disraeli Avenue.
Disraeli Avenue has been developed from my debut novel In Search of Adam. This novella provides the reader with an unusual insight into both the incidental and essential characters from the novel, giving a deeper understanding of the part that each plays in the book. Readers new to Disraeli Avenue may find the snapshots of individual lives lived on an average street moving, and compelling. Readers familiar with In Search of Adam may find pleasure in learning more about those involved in Jude Williams' life and will find a redemption of sorts in the final entry from Bill Williams where he reflects on the death of his wife and daughter.
This download is provided entirely free, but we would ask that you consider making a donation to One in Four.
One in Four offers a voice to and support for people who have experienced sexual abuse and sexual violence. Research has consistently shown that one in four children will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18. Society has thus far been unwilling to face up to the deep rooted nature of this problem or the sheer scale of the long term damage it leaves in its wake. Their determined aim is to change this. One in Four UK is a Registered Charity (Charity Number 1081726).
I may add that all of the contributions to the development of the novel (the writing, editing, typesetting, design, cover design, proofing) have all been contributed free of charge. All contributors are acknowledged within the work.
I’m trying to make a difference, to give something back.
All details can be found at The Friday Project
Friday
Approaching the finishing post
This week has been a productive week, both from a writing and strategy perspective with regard to my new novel.
The finishing post of the new novel now entitled Tangles in the City is in sight and I'm very excited. Hopefully that will occur in the next few weeks. What was once thought to be a rewrite when it was taken by The Friday Project has become an entirely new novel that will spawn three or more sequels and I have enjoyed most of the time spent writing it. Some characters that were minor, existing only to move the plot forward, have taken on their own lives and the book is richer, I feel, as a result.
The novel, set now in 2001, spans two cities, namely London and New York City.
Some last minute research is ongoing. I needed to speak to someone in the UK's Special Branch (MI5) as one of the plot points revolves around an arrest of a character suspected of terrorist affiliation. That hasn't happened as yet, but I've now made contact with a TV director over there who writes about police and organized crime and that has been very helpful. There are also a couple of excellent books I've ordered from my local library dealing with the issue.
And, as it will go on submission to houses in the United States, I chatted to my agent in NYC this week and he wants to read it as soon as possible and give me his take. I've promised him a copy sometime in March, so that will be my incentive to get it done.
So all systems go.
The finishing post of the new novel now entitled Tangles in the City is in sight and I'm very excited. Hopefully that will occur in the next few weeks. What was once thought to be a rewrite when it was taken by The Friday Project has become an entirely new novel that will spawn three or more sequels and I have enjoyed most of the time spent writing it. Some characters that were minor, existing only to move the plot forward, have taken on their own lives and the book is richer, I feel, as a result.
The novel, set now in 2001, spans two cities, namely London and New York City.
Some last minute research is ongoing. I needed to speak to someone in the UK's Special Branch (MI5) as one of the plot points revolves around an arrest of a character suspected of terrorist affiliation. That hasn't happened as yet, but I've now made contact with a TV director over there who writes about police and organized crime and that has been very helpful. There are also a couple of excellent books I've ordered from my local library dealing with the issue.
And, as it will go on submission to houses in the United States, I chatted to my agent in NYC this week and he wants to read it as soon as possible and give me his take. I've promised him a copy sometime in March, so that will be my incentive to get it done.
So all systems go.
Tuesday
Blue or Brown
Recently I learned something really interesting about people with blue eyes. Extensive research has been done and it turns out that all people with blue eyes can trace their ancestry back to one person--that's ONE person--who lived 8000 t0 10,000 years ago near the Black sea.
Because it's caused by a mutation and is recessive, it turns out that there are less and less people being born with blue eyes, at least in the US. In the United States, the number of people with blue eyes has dropped from one in two to one in six because the brown eyed gene is dominant.
Europe is where 95% of people with blue eyes are born and Europeans are a great anomaly because, on all other continents, everyone has darker skin and brown eyes. Once, all humans were born with brown eyes. Indeed Europe is a great mystery in this respect because of our African ancestry, though the theory is that our skin changed due to the harsher weather and need to absorb Vitamin D, easier with fair skin.
Another theory states that the European differences have resulted from inter-breading with Neanderthals--though there is no evidence of large scale breeding taking place between homosapiens and them.
Not sure where that puts me and others with hazel eyes, though.
Because it's caused by a mutation and is recessive, it turns out that there are less and less people being born with blue eyes, at least in the US. In the United States, the number of people with blue eyes has dropped from one in two to one in six because the brown eyed gene is dominant.
Europe is where 95% of people with blue eyes are born and Europeans are a great anomaly because, on all other continents, everyone has darker skin and brown eyes. Once, all humans were born with brown eyes. Indeed Europe is a great mystery in this respect because of our African ancestry, though the theory is that our skin changed due to the harsher weather and need to absorb Vitamin D, easier with fair skin.
Another theory states that the European differences have resulted from inter-breading with Neanderthals--though there is no evidence of large scale breeding taking place between homosapiens and them.
Not sure where that puts me and others with hazel eyes, though.
Super Tuesday Ahoy
I think this is one of the most exciting primaries I've ever witnessed, at least on the Democratic side. I can't wait, simply can't wait, until tomorrow night to see the results coming in. However, I am not euphoric because, let's face it, we've been down this road before when President Clinton came to power and everyone was euphoric and the earth didn't move. Lots of good things happened and we were euphoric but the earth did not move.
The truth is only true change will come when responsible Republicans and Democrats work together for the benefit of American society, when we stop seeing people we disagree with us as foes and un-American.
Regardless of who wins between Clinton or Obama or whether no front runner emerges until Pennsylvania, etc , I feel strongly we're all winners because this is what happens when democracy is working. We're hearing real bread and butter issues being discussed, real visions as to how universal (or near enough) health care can be implemented, how the economy can be improved and, most clearly from Obama, how the excesses of large corporations must be reigned in and corporate welfare terminated.
From John McCain, all I'm hearing is the tired old rhetoric that America is under threat and we're going to be annihilated by the Islam extremists and we must stay in Iraq because our vital interests are involved. Hey, a Democratic administration owill be as capable of looking after our security as a Republican one so stop this tired 'trying to scare us witless' nonsense.
Mitt Romney--still horrified by his financing his bid for the presidency and parading he's a true conservative.
Mike Huckabee--the chap needs to leave when he can still do so with a bit of grace.
Really did enjoy seeing Maria Shriver wiggle out of Arnold's grip to endorse Obama. Republican Governor and Democratic California First Lady. Great to see.
Not that sure the country is as swayed by a Kennedy endorsement as they were in say, seventies or eighties. People have moved on and become a lot more knowledgeable, a lot more sophisticated. Era's over, I think.
Oprah on the other hand--will be interesting
Onward!
The truth is only true change will come when responsible Republicans and Democrats work together for the benefit of American society, when we stop seeing people we disagree with us as foes and un-American.
Regardless of who wins between Clinton or Obama or whether no front runner emerges until Pennsylvania, etc , I feel strongly we're all winners because this is what happens when democracy is working. We're hearing real bread and butter issues being discussed, real visions as to how universal (or near enough) health care can be implemented, how the economy can be improved and, most clearly from Obama, how the excesses of large corporations must be reigned in and corporate welfare terminated.
From John McCain, all I'm hearing is the tired old rhetoric that America is under threat and we're going to be annihilated by the Islam extremists and we must stay in Iraq because our vital interests are involved. Hey, a Democratic administration owill be as capable of looking after our security as a Republican one so stop this tired 'trying to scare us witless' nonsense.
Mitt Romney--still horrified by his financing his bid for the presidency and parading he's a true conservative.
Mike Huckabee--the chap needs to leave when he can still do so with a bit of grace.
Really did enjoy seeing Maria Shriver wiggle out of Arnold's grip to endorse Obama. Republican Governor and Democratic California First Lady. Great to see.
Not that sure the country is as swayed by a Kennedy endorsement as they were in say, seventies or eighties. People have moved on and become a lot more knowledgeable, a lot more sophisticated. Era's over, I think.
Oprah on the other hand--will be interesting
Onward!
Friday
A page a day
I heard John Grisham on the telly the other day. he was being interviewed about his new novel, The Appeal, his first return to the legal thriller genre in four years.
One of the questions he was asked from an unpublished writer was "Any advice for a writer?"
He looked deadpan at the camera and said "Write a page a day." That's 365 pages in a year and a book. One book a year. It's the only way someone will get published. Writing a page a day.
Many people want to write but they feel overwhelmed. They begin a novel but eventually lose momentum and it languishes and then gets forgotten about. So Mr. Grisham gave excellent advice.
He was also asked if he starts a book and just lets things flow. He doesn't. He spends ages writing a detailed outline, knowing where every chapter begins and ends, and only begins when that's done.
That works for some writers. Myself, I don't write an outline. I've done it, but deviated from it so much that I'm not at all convinced it's the only strategy. I do character portraits so I know my characters very deeply before I begin, but that's about it. I allow them to breathe and talk as I write, let them take me to places they want to go in the story. But always I bear in mind that they cannot be allowed to control the story. Only I can do that, and they must be subordinate to the needs of the plot.
And I realize that subconsciously I have an outline in my head. I know where I want to begin and where I want it to end, but in between is open season so to speak.
Grisham's interview made me think about his books. I like them. He is a plot master, though I would not consider him a tremendous writer. I don't think that's his objective though. His goal is to tell excellent stories and he uses the prose that gets that done. Ergo, he is successful and I'm not just talking commercially.
When I compare his style to say McEwan, it is clear McEwan is a master of language. Some of his descriptions in Atonement are literally breathtaking, evoke a joyful "Yes, I've seen moss and colors like that on an old fountain and it does look like that" or "Wow, that's perfect." And yet, I have picked up Atonement twice now and cannot seem to get through it. I don't know if it's because the life of an upper-class English family no longer interests me or the plot is slow and, at times, a little unbelievable.
Either way, when you pick up a Grisham, you know you're going to finish it. So in conclusion, I guess the two writers have different objectives which they meet and are thus successful in their own distinct ways.
One of the questions he was asked from an unpublished writer was "Any advice for a writer?"
He looked deadpan at the camera and said "Write a page a day." That's 365 pages in a year and a book. One book a year. It's the only way someone will get published. Writing a page a day.
Many people want to write but they feel overwhelmed. They begin a novel but eventually lose momentum and it languishes and then gets forgotten about. So Mr. Grisham gave excellent advice.
He was also asked if he starts a book and just lets things flow. He doesn't. He spends ages writing a detailed outline, knowing where every chapter begins and ends, and only begins when that's done.
That works for some writers. Myself, I don't write an outline. I've done it, but deviated from it so much that I'm not at all convinced it's the only strategy. I do character portraits so I know my characters very deeply before I begin, but that's about it. I allow them to breathe and talk as I write, let them take me to places they want to go in the story. But always I bear in mind that they cannot be allowed to control the story. Only I can do that, and they must be subordinate to the needs of the plot.
And I realize that subconsciously I have an outline in my head. I know where I want to begin and where I want it to end, but in between is open season so to speak.
Grisham's interview made me think about his books. I like them. He is a plot master, though I would not consider him a tremendous writer. I don't think that's his objective though. His goal is to tell excellent stories and he uses the prose that gets that done. Ergo, he is successful and I'm not just talking commercially.
When I compare his style to say McEwan, it is clear McEwan is a master of language. Some of his descriptions in Atonement are literally breathtaking, evoke a joyful "Yes, I've seen moss and colors like that on an old fountain and it does look like that" or "Wow, that's perfect." And yet, I have picked up Atonement twice now and cannot seem to get through it. I don't know if it's because the life of an upper-class English family no longer interests me or the plot is slow and, at times, a little unbelievable.
Either way, when you pick up a Grisham, you know you're going to finish it. So in conclusion, I guess the two writers have different objectives which they meet and are thus successful in their own distinct ways.
Tuesday
The Liar's Diary paperback release
Recently I reviewed Patry Francis's great debut novel "The Liar's Diary."
Today it releases in paperback and, as Patry is battling a serious health-related matter (which she blogs about in a candid manner on her blog), all her friends and colleagues are blogging today in support.
Lots of luck with your book and thinking of you at this difficult time, Patry.
Here's the Review
Today it releases in paperback and, as Patry is battling a serious health-related matter (which she blogs about in a candid manner on her blog), all her friends and colleagues are blogging today in support.
Lots of luck with your book and thinking of you at this difficult time, Patry.
Here's the Review
Sunday
Bit of a downer
So our close friends L&L and ourselves decided to get together yesterday and go see a film followed by supper at the new PF Chang's that's just opened near us.
What to see, we mulled. What to see.
I suggested There will be Blood. First, because Daniel Day-Lewis is a first rate actor, second because it's been nominated for eight Oscars, and third because there's been buzz that it's a brilliant film.
Everyone agreed on my choice.
Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview is magnificent (as usual), but I'm afraid one actor does not a brilliant film make. Director Paul Thomas Anderson's film is one great amorphous chasm of darkness. The plot, what there is of it, is basically dirt-poor, ambitious early twentieth Century American strikes gold (in this case oil) in California, becomes a tycoon, and retains his ruthless, competitive nature right to the last scene of the movie. We've had so many of these Hollywood stories I can't believe they think the public's going to hail it cutting edge cinema because of the cat-wailing musical scores and effects, which include an oil derrick burning and the deaths of a couple of oil miners and the murder of a man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother. (I will say Day-Lewis is nothing other than spell-binding when he realizes the man is not who he says he is--the tiniest facial expression speaks volumes and it is this scene which will probably win him the Oscar.)
A few twists are thrown in--the fact that Plainview's son is not his son, but rather an orphan whom he picked off the street and called his son because the presence of a fresh-faced child would help him cheat the farmers of their land, and a preacher who's nothing but a cliche--does nothing but highlight the lack of a riveting plot.
At two hours and thirty minutes, the film is bloated and could have done with the services of a good editor. The last scene is gratuitous. And there is much repetition in case we're such a dumb audience we won't pick up some 'vital' point and we are required to suspend reality. For example, the son has an accident and loses his hearing and we are then expected to believe he loses his ability to speak immediately.
By the time the movie ended, we were ready for PF Chang's and a few glasses of wine. Thankfully, the meal was wonderful and the overall somber spirits sitting through this film had invoked were rapidly dispelled.
What to see, we mulled. What to see.
I suggested There will be Blood. First, because Daniel Day-Lewis is a first rate actor, second because it's been nominated for eight Oscars, and third because there's been buzz that it's a brilliant film.
Everyone agreed on my choice.
Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview is magnificent (as usual), but I'm afraid one actor does not a brilliant film make. Director Paul Thomas Anderson's film is one great amorphous chasm of darkness. The plot, what there is of it, is basically dirt-poor, ambitious early twentieth Century American strikes gold (in this case oil) in California, becomes a tycoon, and retains his ruthless, competitive nature right to the last scene of the movie. We've had so many of these Hollywood stories I can't believe they think the public's going to hail it cutting edge cinema because of the cat-wailing musical scores and effects, which include an oil derrick burning and the deaths of a couple of oil miners and the murder of a man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother. (I will say Day-Lewis is nothing other than spell-binding when he realizes the man is not who he says he is--the tiniest facial expression speaks volumes and it is this scene which will probably win him the Oscar.)
A few twists are thrown in--the fact that Plainview's son is not his son, but rather an orphan whom he picked off the street and called his son because the presence of a fresh-faced child would help him cheat the farmers of their land, and a preacher who's nothing but a cliche--does nothing but highlight the lack of a riveting plot.
At two hours and thirty minutes, the film is bloated and could have done with the services of a good editor. The last scene is gratuitous. And there is much repetition in case we're such a dumb audience we won't pick up some 'vital' point and we are required to suspend reality. For example, the son has an accident and loses his hearing and we are then expected to believe he loses his ability to speak immediately.
By the time the movie ended, we were ready for PF Chang's and a few glasses of wine. Thankfully, the meal was wonderful and the overall somber spirits sitting through this film had invoked were rapidly dispelled.
Tuesday
German 'green' ingenuity
Today, the 462 foot cargo ship MS Beluga left the port city of Bremen on its way to Venezuela. After it arrived in the open sea, it unwound a giant sky sail (a kite, really) measuring 462 square meters from its bow that can fly 600 feet above the vessel and power the ship.
If the experiment works, the ship will cut its carbon emissions by 20% for the entire voyage. It should be noted that there are about 100,000 ships carrying 95% of the world's cargo from country to country and the cargo companies use the dirtiest fuel (diesel)to power their fleets.
The kite device is the brain child of 34-year-old Stephan Wrage and the experiment has been financed in large part by the German government. Computers manage the mechanics of flying the kite. Reduction of greenhouse gases and saving our planet is the catalyst energizing the trial.
The cargo industry is very conservative (with a small 'c', probably a large one too) but they are watching with interest. Already orders for the kite are coming in. If it works, a giant kite measuring 5000 sq meters will be devised for the huge tankers and emissions could be reduced by 30 or 40%
If the experiment works, the ship will cut its carbon emissions by 20% for the entire voyage. It should be noted that there are about 100,000 ships carrying 95% of the world's cargo from country to country and the cargo companies use the dirtiest fuel (diesel)to power their fleets.
The kite device is the brain child of 34-year-old Stephan Wrage and the experiment has been financed in large part by the German government. Computers manage the mechanics of flying the kite. Reduction of greenhouse gases and saving our planet is the catalyst energizing the trial.
The cargo industry is very conservative (with a small 'c', probably a large one too) but they are watching with interest. Already orders for the kite are coming in. If it works, a giant kite measuring 5000 sq meters will be devised for the huge tankers and emissions could be reduced by 30 or 40%
Friday
About cloning
In the same week the USDA says that meat and dairy products from cloned animals will one day be available on our supermarket shelves because there's no difference in the animal and it's clone, we learn Stemagen Corp--a privately funded company in California--has managed to clone a human.
It was fascinating watching the interview of the scientist Dr. Samuel Wood who'd used his own skin cells as the "building blocks" of the process. He said he felt amazing and strange peering at the three cells of what would become a copy of him before he destroyed them.
I understand the whole argument that cloning should be allowed because it will advance the search for cures to disease, etc.
But I will take this a step farther. What is the real problem or dilemma in bringing a child into the world using this method? Why is it automatically unacceptable to do do? Why the knee jerk clamor for laws to prevent cloning? One expects organized religion such as the Catholic church, etc to jerk it's knee, but what about intellectuals and those who do not take the bible literally? Even Wood whom I imagine is intellectual in all aspects of his life felt duty bound to state he didn't ever wish to clone a human--whether that's really his position or not, it felt like morality creeping into the realm of science.
Isn't it intellectual bunk in today's sophisticated world to conclude we can't do this because it's a sin, against God (who's never ruled on it to my knowledge), that its immoral, that it's arrogance to create a carbon copy of oneself. The child would have the same genes as its father OR mother--maybe that's what's making people squeamish:that the genes of one sex is no longer required to produce a child--but that's all. Because it would be born in a different time period and exposed to different socio-economic situations and stimuli (the nurture side of the equation), it would NOT be the same as its parent.
In my opinion, this will happen and in time it will be no more controversial than surrogacy as is increasingly happening with couples who want a child but can't conceive for one reason or other. People throughout the world should have the right to have children whether through sexual intercourse or cutting edge methods that advances in our technology allow. Why not use other pieces of our to DNA to create another human being? We use sperm and egg. The child would be a human being no matter.
In my opinion, we should be concentrating NOT on drafting laws to ban cloning--it's going to happen somewhere in the world--but rather on drafting good laws to protect how it will be conducted and to protect the rights of children born from cloning, if necessary. (For example, one good law would be that the USDA seal of approval can't be put on them making them eligible for consumption.)
After all, once it was strange to think a child's life began inside a test tube. No more.
It was fascinating watching the interview of the scientist Dr. Samuel Wood who'd used his own skin cells as the "building blocks" of the process. He said he felt amazing and strange peering at the three cells of what would become a copy of him before he destroyed them.
I understand the whole argument that cloning should be allowed because it will advance the search for cures to disease, etc.
But I will take this a step farther. What is the real problem or dilemma in bringing a child into the world using this method? Why is it automatically unacceptable to do do? Why the knee jerk clamor for laws to prevent cloning? One expects organized religion such as the Catholic church, etc to jerk it's knee, but what about intellectuals and those who do not take the bible literally? Even Wood whom I imagine is intellectual in all aspects of his life felt duty bound to state he didn't ever wish to clone a human--whether that's really his position or not, it felt like morality creeping into the realm of science.
Isn't it intellectual bunk in today's sophisticated world to conclude we can't do this because it's a sin, against God (who's never ruled on it to my knowledge), that its immoral, that it's arrogance to create a carbon copy of oneself. The child would have the same genes as its father OR mother--maybe that's what's making people squeamish:that the genes of one sex is no longer required to produce a child--but that's all. Because it would be born in a different time period and exposed to different socio-economic situations and stimuli (the nurture side of the equation), it would NOT be the same as its parent.
In my opinion, this will happen and in time it will be no more controversial than surrogacy as is increasingly happening with couples who want a child but can't conceive for one reason or other. People throughout the world should have the right to have children whether through sexual intercourse or cutting edge methods that advances in our technology allow. Why not use other pieces of our to DNA to create another human being? We use sperm and egg. The child would be a human being no matter.
In my opinion, we should be concentrating NOT on drafting laws to ban cloning--it's going to happen somewhere in the world--but rather on drafting good laws to protect how it will be conducted and to protect the rights of children born from cloning, if necessary. (For example, one good law would be that the USDA seal of approval can't be put on them making them eligible for consumption.)
After all, once it was strange to think a child's life began inside a test tube. No more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)