Category: Uncategorized

That said, I think I’ll be signing up my mom for the Remembering Site for Christmas. I doubt that she’d initiate preserving her memories on her own, but I’m betting she’d do it with me, or so I hope.

RELIGION

Remains of St. Paul may have been found – Yahoo!

Our church is getting involved with The Laptop Project.

POLITICS

Mixed reaction to Cheney’s daughter’s pregnancy, says CNN – fair enough. But Mary Cheney’s pregnancy affects us all? So says Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the “think tank for Concerned Women for America… a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns.” Feh. It affects Mary and her partner and their families. “The vice president and Mrs. Cheney are looking forward with eager anticipation” to the arrival of their sixth grandchild.” Good answer. Read it if only for the snarky comments on both sides of the issue. Haven’t seen such silliness since Dan Quayle went after Murphy Brown.

A Liberal’s Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives

Inside Higher Ed: Rethinking racial classifications
An Education Department plan to change the way colleges collect and report data on their students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds is attracting growing criticism. Opposition is coming from a group that represents some of the most elite private colleges in the country – as well as from officials of large, diverse public universities.

INFORMATION

Report: Students struggle with information literacy.
“Many students know how to use technology, but fewer know how to apply it to find what they’re looking for” by Justin Appel.

You might think the 2010 Census is far away; you would be incorrect, as this website will attest.

How To Conduct a Background Check

The World Almanac has a blog, now about a month old. This probably means more to me than most, since I’ve been reading the book since I was about 10. I may have told this story: my co-workers had a shower for Carol and me, during which they asked us to identify characteristics of the other. I was supposed to name her favorite book – which I failed to do (100 Years of Solitude), but she got mine (The World Almanac). Thing is, when she made her pick, before I revealed my answer, no one thought she was correct, which I thought was terribly funny.

The Small Business Economy: 2006,which, of course, covers the small business economy in 2005. It used to come out the April or May after the prior year; now it comes out in December.

Snopes confirms a gift card scam.

An alpaca pregnancy calculator from the Alpaca Journal.

THE DESTRUCTION OF YOUNG MINDS

Maybe it’s strange that there is a website or two dedicated to people opening boxes, but a front page story about it in the Wall Street Journal about the “unboxing movement” cracked me up.

Last month, Nik, in response to an August post of mine, wrote: Ah, Fantaco! Their “Chronicles” series helped really turn me into a fanboy for the first time. Picked up the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man volumes and that was it, hooked for life. Oh, dear. I edited both of those magazines! I’ve corrupted youth! Sorry, Nik.

MUSIC, GENERALLY

One of my favorite sites is Dead or Alive. I was disappointed, though, that the late Ruth Brown hadn’t made it onto the page. So, I wrote to them to that effect, and now she has.

Bank of America sings U2’s One. Described recently by Ad Age’s Jonah Bloom as “more toe-curlingly cringe-worthy than anything David Berent did on ‘The Office.'” So popular that it has been parodied as David Cross and Johnny Marr cover Bank of America guy covers U2.

BEATLES, SPECIFICALLY

One of my colleagues got really excited by this “John Lennon” Clip from The Cavern, until he discovered it was from the Cavern Beatles; a decent simulation.

Johnny Bacardi turned me onto a website about the REAL Beatles called What Goes On. It collects Beatle (and Beach Boys) news from all over. It’s where I found this story about UK rejecting music copyright extension, which would, presumably, put the Beatles’ catalog in the public domain there during the next decade. Practically, with the US law with a much longer term, what will this mean? I’m hoping this guy, who is an intellectual property lawyer, as well as a rock and roll drummer, might answer this. He just wrote this interesting Apple vs. Apple piece.

If there were something you could take after experiencing a painful or traumatic event that would permanently weaken your memory of what had just happened, would you take it? As correspondent Lesley Stahl reports, it’s an idea that may not be so far off, and that has some critics alarmed, and some trauma victims filled with hope.

When some traumatic event, such as a man jumping in front of a conductor’s train to commit suicide, or a girl being raped by a doctor at the age of 12, doctors who have studied and treated patients with post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, have enrolled some patients in experimental studies of a drug called propranolol, a medication commonly used for high blood pressure … and unofficially, for stage fright.”

“Absolutely,” Magnus says. “Our breakups, our relationships, as painful as they are, we learn from some of those painful experiences. They make us better people.”
…
But while the ethicists debate the issue, the science is moving forward. Researchers have shown in rat studies that propranolol can also blunt old memories.
…
And now the U.S. military has taken note: Pitman recently heard from the Army that he will be receiving funding starting next summer to try the same propranolol experiment to treat American soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, the questions:

1. Under what circumstances, if any, should a memory-blocking pill be taken?

2. Is the peace that comes with the end of a bad memory worth the life lessons that pain brings?

3. Would you ever take such a pill?

Yoko writes: “This year, though, on December 8th, while we remember John, I would also like us to focus on sending the following messages to the millions of people suffering around the world:

We pray for the wounds to heal.”

Two seemingly disparate articles I read this past week in the local weekly rag, Metroland, jumped out at me.

One was Reaching Out by Cathy Resmer. It describes Linda White, whose daughter was raped and murdered in Texas 20 years ago by a couple 15-year-olds. “In 2001, White and her granddaughter Ami traveled to a prison in Wichita Falls, Texas, where they met with [one of the murderers, Gary] Brown and a trained facilitator. The meeting, known as a ‘victim-offender mediation’ — or, more accurately, a ‘victim-offender dialogue’ — lasted eight hours.”

Conversely, a recent Wall Street Journal piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz really annoyed me. It read: “Most Americans, other than some fortunate few, have by now heard about the forgiveness movement, something of an industry whereby bereaved families seek out murderers of their …loved ones to deliver forgiveness.” She was describing a recent television program, Beyond Conviction – which I did not see – as a variation on the theme “where a woman at the age of 20 was raped by her older brother, now serving a 20-year prison sentence.” She seems to trivialize the notion of forgiveness.

Yet, I’m struck by a subtext of Yoko’s message, even as I read these words from her:
“As the widow of one who was killed by an act of violence, I don’t know if I am ready yet to forgive the one who pulled the trigger. I am sure all victims of violence crimes feel as I do. But healing is what is urgently needed now in the world.

Let’s heal the wounds together.”

I’m hoping that Yoko finds the healing she craves for others.

Oddly, the other Metroland article that hit me, seemingly more trivial, was “Giving Up ‘I Suck'” by Miriam Axel-Lute, which is here presently, and will eventually be here. Noting that she has burned the apple sauce she was making, she writes:
“I suck!” “I am so dumb.” “What a frigging idiot.”

But this time I paused and realized my baby daughter was sleeping in the next room. And I had to give it a little more thought.

My basic feeling is that there enough people OUT THERE who’ll tell you you’re an idiot; you needn’t be one of them, especially publicly. I’m hoping certain people will expunge it from their vocabularies.

Here’s the list:

20. American Beauty. Not sure. I saw it, I liked it well enough, I wasn’t surprised by the critical buzz, though I wondered if it wasn’t a bit of some guys fixated on young Mena Suvari. This falls in the category of, if you see it BEFORE the buzz really begins, it may be more entertaining.

19. Chicago. The musical had just about died, Moulin Rouge notwithstanding. I thought this was very entertaining, occasionally very funny – the Richard Gere/ Christine Baranski back-and-forth was fun, Queen Latifah was a force. And the leads were good. If the editing was sloppy, as some suggest, it didn’t detract from the (a)morality play.

18. Clerks. Horrors, I’ve STILL never seen this.

17. Fantasia. Oh, please. For 1940, this movie was AMAZING. Yeah, it could have done with some editing between the numbers. And I’ve always seen this movie (once in the theater, a few times at home) under the influence of nothing.

16. Field of Dreams. Every time I’m flicking through the channels and I see this is on, I end up watching it again. And it always gets me, Doc’s choices, the James Earl Jones’ character’s soliloquy, the Costner character playing catch with his dad…excuse me, I need a hanky.

15. Chariots of Fire. This movie suffers for me because I saw it (with my girlfriend at the time and her son) a week AFTER it had won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Looked pretty, but we said, “Is that all there is?” I dare say, if I had seen it four months sooner, I might have had a different reaction. Haven’t seen it since.
14. Good Will Hunting. I enjoyed it. Even enjoyed Robin Williams, which isn’t always the case.

13. Forrest Gump. I liked it in parts, such as the football game, ping pong matches, Lt. Dan’s missing legs, and the meetings with the Presidents. The running section, which used three different songs (only one or two which made it to the soundtrack) went on too long – yeah, it was SUPPOSED to go on and on, but still. (I seem to recall that the running, bearded Hanks was actually played by his brother. Or am I just misremembering?)
I get annoyed that Jenny, the antiwar character, is, as Weird Al Yankovic describes in the great parody of “Lump” by The Presidents Of The United States Of America called Gump, a “bit of a slut”. Forrest’s creation of the Smiley face seemed forced. Generally, I watched the film with a real detachment. Maybe it’s because I could never buy Sally Field, who was Hanks’ stand-up comedy competition in the movie Punchline six years earlier, as his mother. Yet I’m always touched by the big reveal near the end with Haley Joel Osment.

12. Jules and Jim. I saw it a LONG time ago, 35-40 years ago, remember being awed by it, but probably should see again.

11. A Beautiful Mind. I think the backlash comes from the fact that it took liberties with the facts. I enjoyed it for what was actually on the screen. Russell Crowe showed again – I’d seen him in L.A. Confidential and The Outsider – that he was a fine actor, before his persona came to the fore.

10. Monster’s Ball. My sense is that Halle Berry was playing against type and revealed aside not suspected. At that level, it worked, though it was an unpleasant film to watch.

9. Moonstruck. Obviously the reviewer needs to snap out of it.

8. Mystic River. Really wanted to see this. Or not. It came out when Carol was pregnant, and the storyline just didn’t appeal to me at that moment. Maybe I’ll see it now.

7. Nashville. Tried to watch this on video recently, unsuccessfully. Will try again.

6. The Wizard of Oz. The transformation from the b&w Kansas to the technicolor Oz as NOT necessarily where Dorothy wanted to be is an endlessly fascinating philosophical conversation. I love how many actors had two or more roles, especially Frank Morgan: Professor Marvel plus the Emerald City doorman, the Wiz himself and more is a hoot. Know what really scared me? The talking trees – yeesh!
The movie’s cultural impact based on quotes alone, is huge. They’ve made new plays, books, etc. based on the (eventual) success of this movie. Overrated? Not in this country.

5. An American in Paris. Only seen clips on TV.

4. Easy Rider. Sure it’s of its period, but the ending blew me away when I first saw it in the theater. And for good and for bad, it propelled Jack Nicholson’s career.

3. The Red Shoes. Haven’t seen.

2. 2001: A Space Odyssey. Haven’t seen since it first came out in 1968. I said, “What the heck” a lot, but I liked it. Probably should see again.

1. Gone with the Wind. I have never seen this film in its entirety. It’s the length, the subject matter. It so peculiar, too, because I remember when it first aired on TV over two nights. It’s STILL one of the most watched programs ever. It provided the opportunity for the first black person ever to win an Oscar. But seriously, all I REALLY know about this movie, I’ve seen in Carol Burnett sketches.

Many progressives have never quite understood why the most vehement religious opponents of homosexuality view it as such a threat. [I would count myself in that number.] I myself have always assumed that it is because religious opponents are devoted to the preservation of traditional gender roles, which sustain a male/female hierarchy. But the Ted Haggard story suggests a different reason– at least for that segment of religious opponents who, like a significant proportion of the population generally, share same-sex or bisexual orientations and desires. Viewed from Ted Haggard’s perspective– a man who, despite his shame and guilt, is attracted to other men– gay marriage and the gay lifestyle really are a threat to heterosexual relationships and heterosexual marriage. That is because they are a threat to his heterosexual identity and his heterosexual marriage. He knows the Devil is always tracking him, waiting for him to slip up. That is because he conceptualizes his sexual desires as sin and as alienation from God, and not as the expressions of something that might actually become valuable to him if accepted them as part of himself.

That can’t be it, can it? I mean, some people can be tempted to stray regardless of sexual orientation. But it would seem to naive ol’ me that someone in a committed gay relationship, or straight relationship, might be just a tad less tempting than someone not in such a relationship. What am I missing here?

I am not saying that people don’t stray, even when married; that’s why the 10 Commandments have been around for SO long. I’m saying that I’d think that gay marriage, an equal legal commitment in the society, would theoretically STRENGTHEN marriage of straight couples, not threaten them. Here’s a Brief History of Marriage Meddling in the United States.

I was at a party just this past Sunday when this topic came up. What was humorous about it for me is that I was all proud of my church congregation’s position as a More Light congregation, and the woman I was talking with, if anything, thought that being More Light did not go far ENOUGH in the process of including gays, lesbians and transgendered people. She, who’s been a Presbyterian far longer and more actively than I, believe the church’s position on ordination, for instance, is equivalent to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Since 1978 it has been the policy of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) not to ordain “self-affirming, practicing homosexuals.” The key here is “self-affirming”.

I was very nervous that the New Jersey Court decision about gay marriage just before the last election would “mobilize the conservative base,” and maybe it did, since 7 of 8 states voted for restrictions on gay marriage this month. Since the election, NJ conservatives are pushing proposal that would grant the rights of marriage – but not the title – to gays, siblings (!) and others involved in domestic partnerships. So, it it the TITLE of marriage that’s so scary?