We now know the date and the place for William and Kate's big day: Westminster Abbey on April 29. It's being reported that this is a victory for William, who wants the wedding to take place "sooner, rather than later," against the uptight and PR-minded members of the Queen's household, who wanted a summer date that presumably would ensure a brighter, sunnier day for the festivities. Apparently they're taking their chances and keeping their fingers crossed that the notoriously gloomy "Springtime in London" rain showers won't rain on the whole parade.
As all the various details are announced, I'm struck by the fact that William and Kate don't seem to be shying away from memories of Princess Diana. Conventional wisdom said that unhappy memories of Diana's funeral would preclude having the wedding at the Abbey, but obviously that's not the case, not to mention the fact that Kate is now wearing Diana's engagement ring. I would rate this as another victory for Prince William, because over the 13 years since Diana died, the royal family on an official level has seemed to want to erase the whole tumultuous Diana era from their collective memory, to pretend as if the whole thing never happened. Clearly that's not okay with William and it really is going to be fascinating to watch as the whole thing plays out over the next few months.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
No Boys On The Second Floor
If you think you've already heard enough about Sarah Palin to last you until doomsday and beyond, my advice is that you take to your bed, cover your head with a pillow and don't come out until Thanksgiving of 2012, because it's about to get a lot worse. Tonight TLC airs episode 2 of "Sarah Palin's Alaska", Monday is Bristol's Dancing With The Stars finale, and Tuesday brings the debut of "America By Heart, Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag," Sarah's second book. Wow.
With the amount of media attention this woman and her family get, you'd almost think she's the next President of the United States, which is a thought that drives me to despair and makes me want to pack up my stuff and move to Tahiti. When I calm down and think it through, however, sanity returns and I remember that Sarah Palin is a media phenomenon, not a serious politician. She gets media coverage because she's good for ratings, not because she's proposing good solutions to the serious problems facing our country. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Would any of this be happening if Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle?
Anyway, if you look beneath the surface of the nonstop media deluge, you'll see that some serious Republicans are beginning to state that the emperor (empress?) has no clothes. Peggy Noonan, Republican columnist for the Wall Street Journal and speechwriter for President Reagan, recently called Palin a "nincompoop." Mark McKinnon, who was a media advisor for George W. Bush and John McCain, said "Palin is getting close to her 'sell by' date... her stock is falling and pretty rapidly now, I think." Karl Rove recently expressed concern that Palin lacks gravitas, a perception not likely to be erased by shots of Sarah on television, wearing running shorts and hollering "No boys on the second floor" at her 16-year-old daughter Willow. Conservative blogger Mona Charen piles on, stating that Palin "quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week) and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin's Alaska, we get "Sarah Palin's Alaska," another cheesy entrant in the reality show genre... Palin as a presidential candidate? Absolutely not." And I loved hearing former first lady Barbara Bush tell Larry King, in an interview to be aired tomorrow night on CNN, that Palin is "beautiful, and I hope she stays in Alaska."
Even the Weekly Standard, usually the usually the loudest and cheeriest of Palin's right-wing media cheerleaders, calls her TV show "tacky," and that's before we've even seen the very special episode co-starring Kate Gosselin.
With the amount of media attention this woman and her family get, you'd almost think she's the next President of the United States, which is a thought that drives me to despair and makes me want to pack up my stuff and move to Tahiti. When I calm down and think it through, however, sanity returns and I remember that Sarah Palin is a media phenomenon, not a serious politician. She gets media coverage because she's good for ratings, not because she's proposing good solutions to the serious problems facing our country. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Would any of this be happening if Sarah Palin looked like Susan Boyle?
Anyway, if you look beneath the surface of the nonstop media deluge, you'll see that some serious Republicans are beginning to state that the emperor (empress?) has no clothes. Peggy Noonan, Republican columnist for the Wall Street Journal and speechwriter for President Reagan, recently called Palin a "nincompoop." Mark McKinnon, who was a media advisor for George W. Bush and John McCain, said "Palin is getting close to her 'sell by' date... her stock is falling and pretty rapidly now, I think." Karl Rove recently expressed concern that Palin lacks gravitas, a perception not likely to be erased by shots of Sarah on television, wearing running shorts and hollering "No boys on the second floor" at her 16-year-old daughter Willow. Conservative blogger Mona Charen piles on, stating that Palin "quit her job as governor after two and a half years, published a book (another is due next week) and seemed to chase money and empty celebrity. Now, rather than being able to highlight the accomplishments of Sarah Palin's Alaska, we get "Sarah Palin's Alaska," another cheesy entrant in the reality show genre... Palin as a presidential candidate? Absolutely not." And I loved hearing former first lady Barbara Bush tell Larry King, in an interview to be aired tomorrow night on CNN, that Palin is "beautiful, and I hope she stays in Alaska."
Even the Weekly Standard, usually the usually the loudest and cheeriest of Palin's right-wing media cheerleaders, calls her TV show "tacky," and that's before we've even seen the very special episode co-starring Kate Gosselin.
Will Sarah Palin run for President? I don't think so. Running for President is really, really hard work. More to the point where Palin is concerned is that you do it as a volunteer. There's no salary that comes with declaring yourself to be a candidate for president. That fact alone reassures me that I probably won't have to move to Tahiti.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
No More Waitey Katie! William Pops The Question
I've turned out to be an on-again, off-again blogger and it's been a few months since my last post, so what did it take to get me back to blogging? Prince William's engagement, of course! For better or worse, the love life and romantic choices of a British king-to-be are once again big news, and yes, I admit, I'm watching.
Although there's certainly a "deja vu" element to all this, harking back to 1981 when the world was first introduced to Lady Diana Spencer, I'm struck as well by how much things have changed. William and Kate's courtship has lasted longer than the substantive reality of Charles and Diana's marriage, and apparently Kate is the oldest woman ever to marry an heir to the British throne. To put it another way, Kate is just short of her 29th birthday; at the same age, Diana had been married for almost nine years, was the mother of two boys and was no longer sleeping with or even speaking civilly to her Prince Charming. At that point both she and Charles had been having full-blown affairs with others for several years. When it comes to dating and choosing his bride, the royals have clearly worked hard to learn from past mistakes, and William has been allowed to do things differently. The hope, of course, is that the outcome will be different too.
So congratulations to William and Kate. Based on the BBC's saturation coverage of this story today, you would think the fate of the world hinges on this marriage. I definitely wouldn't go that far, but it is intriguing, and I'll be keeping an interested eye on all of it. More blogging to come, I promise!
Although there's certainly a "deja vu" element to all this, harking back to 1981 when the world was first introduced to Lady Diana Spencer, I'm struck as well by how much things have changed. William and Kate's courtship has lasted longer than the substantive reality of Charles and Diana's marriage, and apparently Kate is the oldest woman ever to marry an heir to the British throne. To put it another way, Kate is just short of her 29th birthday; at the same age, Diana had been married for almost nine years, was the mother of two boys and was no longer sleeping with or even speaking civilly to her Prince Charming. At that point both she and Charles had been having full-blown affairs with others for several years. When it comes to dating and choosing his bride, the royals have clearly worked hard to learn from past mistakes, and William has been allowed to do things differently. The hope, of course, is that the outcome will be different too.
So congratulations to William and Kate. Based on the BBC's saturation coverage of this story today, you would think the fate of the world hinges on this marriage. I definitely wouldn't go that far, but it is intriguing, and I'll be keeping an interested eye on all of it. More blogging to come, I promise!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
More To The Story?
It's been fun watching the "Take This Job and Shove It" saga of JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater as it went viral this week - there were just so many juicy elements. The f-bomb-filled Farewell to the Troops oration over the PA! The beers! The dramatic slide down the slide! And was he really in bed with his boyfriend when the cops caught up with him at his home? That last part may be an urban legend, but still - it's a great story. Apparently Americans of all stripes have fantasized about walking away from their jobs in dramatic and slightly dangerous fashion and Mr. Slater is being called a folk hero. There is talk of a reality TV show. Media feeding frenzies like this, however, tend to play themselves out according to a predictable story arc, and sure enough, more information is starting to emerge.
The passengers are starting to talk, and some are saying the flight attendant may have initiated the confrontation that started it all. Some are saying Steven was rude to them throughout the flight, completely separate from the carry-on bag issue. There are also questions about JetBlue's handling of the situation. Why did they wait so long to notify authorities that there had been an incident on their flight? Was the tongue-in-cheek posting on their corporate blog really the best way to handle this? $100 to every passenger? Is that enough to compensate for the inconvenience? Too much?
The whole thing is taking on a Rashomonesque quality and we may never know what really happened and maybe it ultimately doesn't really matter. In the middle of the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer something interesting happened, something we can all relate to, and the rest, as they say, is history.
The passengers are starting to talk, and some are saying the flight attendant may have initiated the confrontation that started it all. Some are saying Steven was rude to them throughout the flight, completely separate from the carry-on bag issue. There are also questions about JetBlue's handling of the situation. Why did they wait so long to notify authorities that there had been an incident on their flight? Was the tongue-in-cheek posting on their corporate blog really the best way to handle this? $100 to every passenger? Is that enough to compensate for the inconvenience? Too much?
The whole thing is taking on a Rashomonesque quality and we may never know what really happened and maybe it ultimately doesn't really matter. In the middle of the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer something interesting happened, something we can all relate to, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Does Us Weekly Get The Money Back?
Just when you thought things couldn't get any weirder up in Palinland, it's now been announced that Levi Johnston is indeed getting his own reality show, to be called "Loving Levi," in which he will, wait for it, run for mayor of Wasilla. If you're scratching your head and wondering, who is this guy and how did he get to this point?, a quick reminder: Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign plucked him out of obscurity, brought him down off an Alaskan hunting field, cleaned him up and dressed him up, then paraded him across the stage at the 2008 RNC as the beloved fiancé of daughter Bristol, trying to turn an "oops" teen-age pregnancy into the abstinence-only version of Ozzie and Harriet. That didn't work out so well, and as I mentioned a few weeks ago, I'm thinking about the Law of Unintended Consequences where Levi is concerned. This can't be what Sarah had in mind back at the convention, when she stood in front of Levi tenderly stroking his face, and right now I'd bet that her reaction is some mixture of relief that he's not going to be her son-in-law, annoyance that he's still in the public eye, and a fervent wish that he would just go away once and for all.
And speaking of unintended consequences, should a potential presidential candidate really share her reality TV stage with Kate plus 8? "Sarah Palin's Alaska" was supposed to be an anodyne travelogue about the scenic beauty of Sarah's home state, but if she had done her homework, she would know that on television "non-controversial and low key" translates into "boring and low ratings". You need controversy, conflict and scandal to make really good television and I'm sure that's what the producers are hoping for by bringing Kate Gosselin into the picture. But is this what Sarah wanted? Did she have any input into this decision?
I can't help wondering if Sarah is feeling any regret about selling her soul for the chance to go swanning around Alaska with a TV crew in tow. It's her name in the title, but once everything is filmed the outcome is in the producers' and editors' hands and no matter what they've said to her, they couldn't care less about making her look good. They just want exciting television. Kate and the kids will spice things up, that's for sure, but the end result may not be entirely positive for Sarah Palin. Gotta watch out for those unintended consequences...
And speaking of unintended consequences, should a potential presidential candidate really share her reality TV stage with Kate plus 8? "Sarah Palin's Alaska" was supposed to be an anodyne travelogue about the scenic beauty of Sarah's home state, but if she had done her homework, she would know that on television "non-controversial and low key" translates into "boring and low ratings". You need controversy, conflict and scandal to make really good television and I'm sure that's what the producers are hoping for by bringing Kate Gosselin into the picture. But is this what Sarah wanted? Did she have any input into this decision?
I can't help wondering if Sarah is feeling any regret about selling her soul for the chance to go swanning around Alaska with a TV crew in tow. It's her name in the title, but once everything is filmed the outcome is in the producers' and editors' hands and no matter what they've said to her, they couldn't care less about making her look good. They just want exciting television. Kate and the kids will spice things up, that's for sure, but the end result may not be entirely positive for Sarah Palin. Gotta watch out for those unintended consequences...
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Doing The Right Thing
One of my favorite aphorisms is "Cooler heads prevailed." It conjures up an image of a bunch of crazy people running around like headless chickens in the middle of a crisis, until some éminence, grise or otherwise, has the wit and the wisdom to say, "Wait a minute, let's settle down and think about this..."
Clearly that didn't happen at the Department of Agriculture when the decision was made to fire Shirley Sherrod, based on some comments she made about an incident back in the 80s, that initially appeared to be racist. The video clip that set things in motion has now been proven to have been edited and as frequently happens, it turns out there's more to the story. To put it another way, when Glenn Beck and the NAACP agree about something, which is that Ms. Sherrod should be reinstated, you know something's seriously out of whack.
Coverage of this story is all over the place, and so far the perspective I like the best comes from political scientist Jonathan Bernstein at his blog A plain blog about politics. I'm hopeful that when everything is said and done we will all be able to reflect on this strange episode and say that cooler heads prevailed.
Clearly that didn't happen at the Department of Agriculture when the decision was made to fire Shirley Sherrod, based on some comments she made about an incident back in the 80s, that initially appeared to be racist. The video clip that set things in motion has now been proven to have been edited and as frequently happens, it turns out there's more to the story. To put it another way, when Glenn Beck and the NAACP agree about something, which is that Ms. Sherrod should be reinstated, you know something's seriously out of whack.
Coverage of this story is all over the place, and so far the perspective I like the best comes from political scientist Jonathan Bernstein at his blog A plain blog about politics. I'm hopeful that when everything is said and done we will all be able to reflect on this strange episode and say that cooler heads prevailed.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Loving The Words, Hating The Pickles
Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten has an interesting column about the dying art of creative newspaper headline writing. I was about two thirds of the way through the article when I came to his quote about pickles, and all I can say is that I wish I hadn't just taken a big drink of TAB when I read it.
Nothing profound, just very funny. Check it out here.
Nothing profound, just very funny. Check it out here.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Refudiate?
I promise that this blog isn't going to be "all Sarah, all the time," but she's been so entertaining recently that I just can't stop posting about her. She was actually having a pretty good run there for a while, prior to last Wednesday. Her PAC had raised a respectable sum of money, her innocuous, if mostly substance-free, Mama Grizzly video was getting some positive reviews and serious political commentators were once again talking about her as a serious presidential candidate.
Then came Wednesday morning and the "As Wasilla Turns" (h/t Newsweek) announcement that Bristol and Levi are engaged. Based on that story and all the various follow-ons (Sarah's "holding her nose" press release, Levi's sister's blog post, the ex-boyfriend speaks, etc.,) I had begun writing a post about the Law of Unintended Consequences, in which I wondered if Sarah ever has any regrets about shining such a bright spotlight on her children. Here's the short version of that post:
It is possible to be a national-level politician and still maintain a zone of privacy around your children. Consider: John McCain has seven children, Nancy Pelosi has five and Joe Biden has three. Can you name them? Would you recognize any of them if they appeared on the cover of a tabloid? Hillary Clinton has one daughter and we all know what she looks like, but I think it's safe to say that Chelsea Clinton will never sell her story to Us Weekly. Sarah Palin and her family have taken a different path.
Before I could get that post all polished and published, "Refudiate-gate" happened and Sarah Palin's week went from bad to worse. The background is that earlier in the week, Palin had used the (non-existent) word "refudiate" in an interview with Sean Hannity. Some bloggers picked up on it and posted the YouTube clip but it didn't really go viral. Then yesterday she used the word again, this time in a tweet about what "peaceful Muslims" should do in response to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. You can read what happened next, including some of the hilariously snarky response tweets, here and here. (Or go to twitter and type "#shakespalin" into the search box.) I like linguist Mark Liberman's take on it in the Language Log blog, i.e., isn't there anyone advising Palin on how to avoid this kind of thing?
So now it's a new week and there are bound to be more Adventures in Palinland to keep us all amused. Entertaining? Definitely. Presidential? Not so much.
Then came Wednesday morning and the "As Wasilla Turns" (h/t Newsweek) announcement that Bristol and Levi are engaged. Based on that story and all the various follow-ons (Sarah's "holding her nose" press release, Levi's sister's blog post, the ex-boyfriend speaks, etc.,) I had begun writing a post about the Law of Unintended Consequences, in which I wondered if Sarah ever has any regrets about shining such a bright spotlight on her children. Here's the short version of that post:
It is possible to be a national-level politician and still maintain a zone of privacy around your children. Consider: John McCain has seven children, Nancy Pelosi has five and Joe Biden has three. Can you name them? Would you recognize any of them if they appeared on the cover of a tabloid? Hillary Clinton has one daughter and we all know what she looks like, but I think it's safe to say that Chelsea Clinton will never sell her story to Us Weekly. Sarah Palin and her family have taken a different path.
Before I could get that post all polished and published, "Refudiate-gate" happened and Sarah Palin's week went from bad to worse. The background is that earlier in the week, Palin had used the (non-existent) word "refudiate" in an interview with Sean Hannity. Some bloggers picked up on it and posted the YouTube clip but it didn't really go viral. Then yesterday she used the word again, this time in a tweet about what "peaceful Muslims" should do in response to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. You can read what happened next, including some of the hilariously snarky response tweets, here and here. (Or go to twitter and type "#shakespalin" into the search box.) I like linguist Mark Liberman's take on it in the Language Log blog, i.e., isn't there anyone advising Palin on how to avoid this kind of thing?
So now it's a new week and there are bound to be more Adventures in Palinland to keep us all amused. Entertaining? Definitely. Presidential? Not so much.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Hello, Young Lovers
Those crazy, love-struck kids! I'm talking about Bristol and Levi, of course, and ever since their engagement was announced by Us Weekly, their story is everywhere. Levi got down on one knee to propose! He put rose petals on her bed in the shape of a heart! She wants to wear a Carolina Herrera wedding gown, with the groom and the love child in camo gear! Sarah didn't know...
This wouldn't be news, of course, if the bride's mom wasn't Sarah Palin, and even the various political pundits got into the act, wondering if the story helps or hurts Sarah's potential presidential campaign. Some, including Ben Smith of politico.com, clearly got caught up in the romance of it all and tried to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, saying that the engagement is a way of "cleaning up a messy family situation" in support of Sarah's efforts to be seen as a serious and credible politician. Based on the way things have played out this week, however, I think Ben and his friends may have jumped the gun with the Happily Ever After narrative. So far the story reads more like Peyton Place on the Klondike than Family Ties.
Levi's mother was in tears on Inside Edition. Levi's sister, who took to her blog to share the family's sadness at learning about this via the media instead of from Levi himself, couldn't resist alluding to the possibility that Tripp's baby brother or sister is already on the way. ("I certainly do not understand why you are rushing things. Unless there is some reason for the hurry.")
Bristol's ex-boyfriend weighed in too, speaking with Shushannah Walshe on The Daily Beast. In addition to the predictable "trash the ex-girlfriend" stuff, Ben Barber says that Levi is "probably the worst person to give fame to," which provides some enlightenment for those of us who were wondering why B & L used US Weekly to announce their engagement. Apparently in Palinland, fame is the best gift anyone can possibly get.
Young Ben also shares that he texted Bristol to ask her if she is pregnant. Bristol is a national spokesperson for teen abstinence and she stated very clearly to Oprah a few months ago that she won't be sexually active again until she is married. If Bristol truly is a young woman who doesn't have sex, her boyfriends, both current and former, would certainly know it, along with the fact that girls who don't have sex don't get pregnant. What could possibly make Ben think he had to ask about pregnancy? For the record, Bristol said no, but you do have to wonder. (Yes, this is snark, but for those of us who don't admire Sarah Palin, hypocrisy is one of the reasons and Bristol's "do as I say, not as I did" gig as an abstinence spokesperson has always annoyed me.)
So what does all this mean for Sarah's professional prospects? Too soon to tell but I'm definitely going to keep watching. Until the next political sex scandal pops up this is about as entertaining as it gets.
This wouldn't be news, of course, if the bride's mom wasn't Sarah Palin, and even the various political pundits got into the act, wondering if the story helps or hurts Sarah's potential presidential campaign. Some, including Ben Smith of politico.com, clearly got caught up in the romance of it all and tried to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, saying that the engagement is a way of "cleaning up a messy family situation" in support of Sarah's efforts to be seen as a serious and credible politician. Based on the way things have played out this week, however, I think Ben and his friends may have jumped the gun with the Happily Ever After narrative. So far the story reads more like Peyton Place on the Klondike than Family Ties.
Levi's mother was in tears on Inside Edition. Levi's sister, who took to her blog to share the family's sadness at learning about this via the media instead of from Levi himself, couldn't resist alluding to the possibility that Tripp's baby brother or sister is already on the way. ("I certainly do not understand why you are rushing things. Unless there is some reason for the hurry.")
Bristol's ex-boyfriend weighed in too, speaking with Shushannah Walshe on The Daily Beast. In addition to the predictable "trash the ex-girlfriend" stuff, Ben Barber says that Levi is "probably the worst person to give fame to," which provides some enlightenment for those of us who were wondering why B & L used US Weekly to announce their engagement. Apparently in Palinland, fame is the best gift anyone can possibly get.
Young Ben also shares that he texted Bristol to ask her if she is pregnant. Bristol is a national spokesperson for teen abstinence and she stated very clearly to Oprah a few months ago that she won't be sexually active again until she is married. If Bristol truly is a young woman who doesn't have sex, her boyfriends, both current and former, would certainly know it, along with the fact that girls who don't have sex don't get pregnant. What could possibly make Ben think he had to ask about pregnancy? For the record, Bristol said no, but you do have to wonder. (Yes, this is snark, but for those of us who don't admire Sarah Palin, hypocrisy is one of the reasons and Bristol's "do as I say, not as I did" gig as an abstinence spokesperson has always annoyed me.)
So what does all this mean for Sarah's professional prospects? Too soon to tell but I'm definitely going to keep watching. Until the next political sex scandal pops up this is about as entertaining as it gets.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Bristol Gives Levi A Rose
There's a lot of big news in the world of celebrity love and marriage lately - Carrie Underwood, Penélope Cruz and Emily Blunt are all recent brides, but for me, the most interesting once-and-future-romance-among-famous-people is the heartwarming soul connection between Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston. If you missed today's bombshell announcement, Us Magazine is reporting that Bristol and Levi have reconciled and are now engaged. They're pictured on the cover of the new edition, along with their son Tripp, and when the story was published, Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin hadn't been informed. Yowza.
Levi's recent public apology for his "youthful indiscretions" was a clue that something had changed in Palinland, so for those who care about this stuff it wasn't a complete surprise, but it's still a head-scratcher. It wasn't all that long ago that everybody hated everybody up in Wasilla, and Sarah isn't known for the kindness and compassion she extends to people who have crossed her. On the contrary, she can be petty, vindictive and just plain mean. She also doesn't like to share the spotlight. We'll probably never know how Sarah reacted to her first sight of the Us Magazine cover story this week, ("I hope my Mom will accept us," says Bristol) but I'd be willing to bet that at least some of the words she used can't be quoted on the Disney Channel.
Things are heating up again in Wasilla and there's no way to predict what will happen next. For sure it won't be boring.
Levi's recent public apology for his "youthful indiscretions" was a clue that something had changed in Palinland, so for those who care about this stuff it wasn't a complete surprise, but it's still a head-scratcher. It wasn't all that long ago that everybody hated everybody up in Wasilla, and Sarah isn't known for the kindness and compassion she extends to people who have crossed her. On the contrary, she can be petty, vindictive and just plain mean. She also doesn't like to share the spotlight. We'll probably never know how Sarah reacted to her first sight of the Us Magazine cover story this week, ("I hope my Mom will accept us," says Bristol) but I'd be willing to bet that at least some of the words she used can't be quoted on the Disney Channel.
Things are heating up again in Wasilla and there's no way to predict what will happen next. For sure it won't be boring.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
How Small Is Small?
Do you know how big a coffee bean is, compared to an amoeba proteus, compared to a water molecule compared to methionine (an amino acid)?
I'm not very scientifically-minded, but I still thought this was cool.
I'm not very scientifically-minded, but I still thought this was cool.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Charm School
If you think the "Russian Spies in America" story that's playing out on all the front pages today is stranger than fiction, think again. To me it sounds like the inevitable "end of the story" to one of my absolute favorite novels, "The Charm School," by Nelson DeMille.
Published in 1988, the story takes place entirely in the USSR, where a group of American spies discover that the Soviets are training young Russian men in the art of being American. The trainees spend a year at the so-called "Charm School" learning to walk, talk, eat, think and do everything else like an American so that after graduation they can take up residence in the states, pass as natives and infiltrate our society with nefarious intent. The book was written over 20 years ago and it's now seriously out of date - the Soviet Union no longer exists, for one thing, not to mention the fact that in those days even the CIA agents didn't have cell phones, computers or internet data searches. Still, based on what we're hearing today, DeMille's premise wasn't as far out as it may have seemed at the time and all these years later I'll bet the author's feeling pretty good about his story right now. Maybe he'd like to write a sequel...
Published in 1988, the story takes place entirely in the USSR, where a group of American spies discover that the Soviets are training young Russian men in the art of being American. The trainees spend a year at the so-called "Charm School" learning to walk, talk, eat, think and do everything else like an American so that after graduation they can take up residence in the states, pass as natives and infiltrate our society with nefarious intent. The book was written over 20 years ago and it's now seriously out of date - the Soviet Union no longer exists, for one thing, not to mention the fact that in those days even the CIA agents didn't have cell phones, computers or internet data searches. Still, based on what we're hearing today, DeMille's premise wasn't as far out as it may have seemed at the time and all these years later I'll bet the author's feeling pretty good about his story right now. Maybe he'd like to write a sequel...
Monday, June 28, 2010
Presidential Succession Update
Politico is now reporting that Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, will be sworn in as the new President Pro Tem of the Senate. So Presidential Succession now looks like this:
1. Vice President Joe Biden
2. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
3. President Pro Tem of the Senate Daniel Inouye
4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
5. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner
1. Vice President Joe Biden
2. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
3. President Pro Tem of the Senate Daniel Inouye
4. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
5. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner
Women Really Should Rule The World
Before his death this morning at the age of 92, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia held the title of President Pro Tem of the U.S. Senate, which meant that he was third in the line of succession to the Presidency. If you're not up on the minutiae of presidential succession, here's how it goes. The Vice President is first in line, of course, followed by the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury and so on down the line of Cabinet Secretaries, in the order in which their department was created. With the Senate Pro Tem position currently vacant, the number two and number three spots in line for the throne (so to speak) are currently held by women: Speaker of the House Pelosi and Secretary of State Clinton. Even after a new Senate Pro Tem is chosen, two out the top five spots in line will be held by women. Regardless of whether or not you agree with them politically, as a woman I think that's cool.
Today also marks the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan. If she is confirmed, and she probably will be, three out of the nine spots on the U.S. Supreme Court, or 30%, will be held by women. That's cool too. (Or at least, it's a good start... )
By the way, do you know who the first woman in the cabinet was? Here's a hint: Nobody puts Baby in a corner. That's right - when Baby told Johnny that her real name was Frances, after the first woman in the cabinet, she was speaking the historic truth. President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins to be the Secretary of Labor in 1933. Very cool.
Today also marks the start of the Senate confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan. If she is confirmed, and she probably will be, three out of the nine spots on the U.S. Supreme Court, or 30%, will be held by women. That's cool too. (Or at least, it's a good start... )
By the way, do you know who the first woman in the cabinet was? Here's a hint: Nobody puts Baby in a corner. That's right - when Baby told Johnny that her real name was Frances, after the first woman in the cabinet, she was speaking the historic truth. President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Frances Perkins to be the Secretary of Labor in 1933. Very cool.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
"Ghana Crushes the American Dream"
I lifted the title of this post from time.com's article about the U.S. team's loss to Ghana in the World Cup and I find myself wondering - why isn't soccer a bigger deal here? It's a big deal right now, sort of, because of World Cup coverage, but I'm talking about the rest of the time. How come soccer isn't as popular in this country, year in and year out, as it is in the rest of the world? This will be a short post because not only do I not know the answer, I don't have any well thought-out musings on the subject. I don't even have any snarky "isn't this lame?" comments on the subject, because like most of my fellow Americans, I just don't care that much about soccer.
If I learn anything interesting about it, between now and, you know, whenever, I'll let you know.
Monday morning update: Time attempts to explain it.
If I learn anything interesting about it, between now and, you know, whenever, I'll let you know.
Monday morning update: Time attempts to explain it.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Being Famous: Dead Or Alive
Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of Michael Jackson's death and in the midst of all the "Remembering Michael" and "Where Are They Now" retrospectives I'm once again contemplating the concept of fame in America. I'll start out by acknowledging that I was never a Michael Jackson fan. Maybe because I didn't have MTV and wasn't going to dance clubs back in the early 80s, or maybe I'm just a total dweeb when it comes to pop music, but somehow I missed out on the whole King of Pop thing. So when the weirdness happened - the plastic surgeries, the little monkey, the little boys, the lawsuits, etc., I didn't have a residual pool of affection in my heart to soften my perceptions that this guy was a total creep and very likely a criminal who could use his money to buy his way out of trouble.
By March of 2009 I also would have said that he was way past his prime as an artist and as a performer. That's when his comeback series of concerts was announced and I found myself wondering if anyone still cared about Michael Jackson. To me he seemed so "over" as a pop star sensation. Would people really shell out big money to see this guy in concert? I didn't think so and boy, was I wrong about that.
When Michael Jackson died a few months later, we were plunged into the ritual media feeding frenzy that I now think of as "Dead Celebrity 101". There's no question that Jackson's death was big news, but if you think you can gauge a celebrity's true importance by how much press coverage they get when they die, I have three words for you: Anna Nicole Smith. Even way back in the last century, when JFK, Jr. died in 1999, a few clear-eyed commentators observed that the media coverage of that event far exceeded John-John's actual importance, and that was back in the days before "#MichaelJacksonDies" could crash Twitter.
So what is it, really, about Michael Jackson? Unlike some of today's here-today, gone-tomorrow teeny-bopper pop star sensations, in his prime he was a spectacularly gifted artist who had an authentically lasting impact on our culture. On the other hand, his glory days were 25 years ago and there was a lot of authentically troubling behavior between then and now, whether or not he actually broke the law. I believe he'll fare better, in terms of historic reputation, now that he has been lifted up into the rose-colored gauziness through which we perceive Famous People Who Tragically Die Young than if he had lived to actually do his concerts. The rehearsal footage that was released after he died struck me as being banal in the extreme, and based on what we've now learned about his health and his lifestyle it sure doesn't sound like he had the strength or the stamina to give his fans their money's worth for 50 shows. Was he really up to it? Could he really deliver the magic again? Obviously, we'll never know but one thing's for sure. He'll always be famous.
By March of 2009 I also would have said that he was way past his prime as an artist and as a performer. That's when his comeback series of concerts was announced and I found myself wondering if anyone still cared about Michael Jackson. To me he seemed so "over" as a pop star sensation. Would people really shell out big money to see this guy in concert? I didn't think so and boy, was I wrong about that.
When Michael Jackson died a few months later, we were plunged into the ritual media feeding frenzy that I now think of as "Dead Celebrity 101". There's no question that Jackson's death was big news, but if you think you can gauge a celebrity's true importance by how much press coverage they get when they die, I have three words for you: Anna Nicole Smith. Even way back in the last century, when JFK, Jr. died in 1999, a few clear-eyed commentators observed that the media coverage of that event far exceeded John-John's actual importance, and that was back in the days before "#MichaelJacksonDies" could crash Twitter.
So what is it, really, about Michael Jackson? Unlike some of today's here-today, gone-tomorrow teeny-bopper pop star sensations, in his prime he was a spectacularly gifted artist who had an authentically lasting impact on our culture. On the other hand, his glory days were 25 years ago and there was a lot of authentically troubling behavior between then and now, whether or not he actually broke the law. I believe he'll fare better, in terms of historic reputation, now that he has been lifted up into the rose-colored gauziness through which we perceive Famous People Who Tragically Die Young than if he had lived to actually do his concerts. The rehearsal footage that was released after he died struck me as being banal in the extreme, and based on what we've now learned about his health and his lifestyle it sure doesn't sound like he had the strength or the stamina to give his fans their money's worth for 50 shows. Was he really up to it? Could he really deliver the magic again? Obviously, we'll never know but one thing's for sure. He'll always be famous.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Another Royal Wedding
But still not the "Big One", meaning Prince William and Kate Middleton. No, now we're talking about Prince Albert of Monaco, who is finally getting married at the age of 52. After a long reign as one of the world's most eligible bachelors, and a relatively shorter reign as the ruler of Monaco, Albert has now finally plighted his troth to a woman from South Africa named Charlene Wittstock. She's blonde, she's pretty and she's 20 years younger than the prince, which presumably means there's time for her to produce a legitimate heir to the Monaco throne.
If my use of the word "legitimate" strikes you as quaint, you should know that although the dashing Prince Albert made it to age 52 without tying the knot, he hasn't exactly been sitting around knitting all this time. He's actually the father of two children already, a girl and a boy, neither of whom are eligible to inherit because he wasn't married to either of their mothers. This is no big deal in Monaco, where Albert's sister Princess Caroline gave birth to her first child 5 1/2 months after the wedding, and his younger sister Stephanie had two children before marrying (and divorcing) her first husband, followed by a third child with a man she never bothered to marry at all.
It's sure a lot different from the uptight British royal family, who forced poor Prince Charles to propose to an untouched 19-year-old girl, for reasons that seemed important at the time and couldn't possibly matter less now. We all know how the disaster that was "Charles and Di" turned out, but that was then, this is now and even in England the royals are loosening up. Wills and Kate have been together for years and no one is pretending that she's still a virgin. On the other hand, Wills hasn't gotten around to proposing yet, and I'll bet Kate Middleton is looking towards Monaco with an envious eye. I say "Chin up, waitey Katie." If Prince Albert can be persuaded to walk down the aisle, there's hope for long-suffering royal girlfriends everywhere.
If my use of the word "legitimate" strikes you as quaint, you should know that although the dashing Prince Albert made it to age 52 without tying the knot, he hasn't exactly been sitting around knitting all this time. He's actually the father of two children already, a girl and a boy, neither of whom are eligible to inherit because he wasn't married to either of their mothers. This is no big deal in Monaco, where Albert's sister Princess Caroline gave birth to her first child 5 1/2 months after the wedding, and his younger sister Stephanie had two children before marrying (and divorcing) her first husband, followed by a third child with a man she never bothered to marry at all.
It's sure a lot different from the uptight British royal family, who forced poor Prince Charles to propose to an untouched 19-year-old girl, for reasons that seemed important at the time and couldn't possibly matter less now. We all know how the disaster that was "Charles and Di" turned out, but that was then, this is now and even in England the royals are loosening up. Wills and Kate have been together for years and no one is pretending that she's still a virgin. On the other hand, Wills hasn't gotten around to proposing yet, and I'll bet Kate Middleton is looking towards Monaco with an envious eye. I say "Chin up, waitey Katie." If Prince Albert can be persuaded to walk down the aisle, there's hope for long-suffering royal girlfriends everywhere.
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Princes, The Princess and the Ex-Girlfriend
It's been a busy few days for royalty watchers. On Saturday, Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden married her long-time boyfriend, a very normal-looking guy who's now known as Prince Daniel, Duke of something-or-other. The interesting thing about him is that he is a commoner, which apparently was initially unacceptable to Victoria's father, the current King of Sweden. In this case, commoner doesn't mean "un-royal but titled individual from one of the country's most aristocratic families," as it did in the case of Lady Diana Spencer. No, this is a regular working guy who met the Princess when she hired him as her personal trainer. I read that he's been given a so-called royal makeover, with lessons on Swedish history, how to look cool in public, who curtsies to who, and who knows what else, all to turn him into someone who is acceptable as a royal consort.
Although Victoria has a younger brother, in Sweden the King's eldest child inherits the throne, male or female, so Prince Daniel is now the equivalent of England's Prince Philip, and eventually he'll be married to the Queen of Sweden. I saw a short video clip of his toast at the wedding reception, in which he referred to himself as the frog who married a princess, which I thought was very charming. And even though we don't hear much about the Swedish royals in this country, they were big news this week-end, which is how I now know that Victoria is the first of the King's three children to marry. Her younger brother recently dumped his fiancée and took up with a reality TV star, and her younger sister broke up with her fiancé because he was cheating on her with a college student, so don't think for a moment that the Swedes aren't getting just as much scandal from their royals as the British get from the House of Windsor.
And speaking of royals who've recently changed their relationship status, apparently Prince Harry and Chelsey Davy have broken up again.
Finally, today is Prince William's 28th birthday, so Happy Birthday, Wills. Are you ever going to make an honest woman out of "waitey Katie"?
Although Victoria has a younger brother, in Sweden the King's eldest child inherits the throne, male or female, so Prince Daniel is now the equivalent of England's Prince Philip, and eventually he'll be married to the Queen of Sweden. I saw a short video clip of his toast at the wedding reception, in which he referred to himself as the frog who married a princess, which I thought was very charming. And even though we don't hear much about the Swedish royals in this country, they were big news this week-end, which is how I now know that Victoria is the first of the King's three children to marry. Her younger brother recently dumped his fiancée and took up with a reality TV star, and her younger sister broke up with her fiancé because he was cheating on her with a college student, so don't think for a moment that the Swedes aren't getting just as much scandal from their royals as the British get from the House of Windsor.
And speaking of royals who've recently changed their relationship status, apparently Prince Harry and Chelsey Davy have broken up again.
Finally, today is Prince William's 28th birthday, so Happy Birthday, Wills. Are you ever going to make an honest woman out of "waitey Katie"?
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Will Sarah Palin Run For President?
I don't think so, in fact I can't imagine it on any level, but two writers that I admire, Andrew Sullivan and Geoffrey Dunn, both think she will, which is why I'm thinking about it today. Does she even want to be president? I assume that every politician in America occasionally fantasizes about flying around on Air Force One and hearing Hail To The Chief every time they walk into a room, but the reality of running for president is so daunting that most of us would break out in hives just considering the possibility. Running for president is really, really hard work, and there is nothing in Sarah Palin's background that would indicate she has any interest in working that hard, much less that she could succeed at it.
For starters, consider the process by which she became the Republican nominee for Vice President in 2008. On Sunday, August 24, 2008, Palin was at the Alaska State Fair when John McCain called her on her cell phone and asked if she was interested. When she said yes, the campaign sent her a long questionnaire that they were asking all of their potential running mates to complete. On Wednesday they secretly flew her from Alaska to Arizona. That afternoon and evening she met with Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, two officials from the McCain campaign, and talked by phone with a Washington D.C. lawyer named Art Culvahouse, who was in charge of vetting VP candidates. On Thursday morning she met with Senator McCain for an hour or two as well as a short meeting with Cindy McCain. By lunchtime Thursday, Sen. McCain had offered her the job.
Five days, from the initial phone call to the job offer. During that time she didn't have to raise any money. She didn't have to recruit, hire, train and manage a national campaign staff. She didn't have to talk to any newspaper editorial boards, trying to convince them to endorse her. There were no negative stories about her in the newspapers, much less nasty stuff written in blogs. Nobody was running negative campaign ads against her. She didn't have to answer questions from reporters and she didn't have to debate her opponents.
Contrast that with the process of running for President. She would have to raise over $500 million dollars, then decide how best to spend it. She would have to lead a campaign organization of hundreds of paid staff and thousands of volunteers, at both the national and state levels. She would have to be able to articulate a coherent message and not just in ghost-written messages on Facebook. She would have to take questions from reporters and she would have to participate in debates - and her one meet-up with Joe Biden would feel like a cakewalk compared to trying to hold her own with her fellow Republican candidates during the primaries.
For starters, consider the process by which she became the Republican nominee for Vice President in 2008. On Sunday, August 24, 2008, Palin was at the Alaska State Fair when John McCain called her on her cell phone and asked if she was interested. When she said yes, the campaign sent her a long questionnaire that they were asking all of their potential running mates to complete. On Wednesday they secretly flew her from Alaska to Arizona. That afternoon and evening she met with Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter, two officials from the McCain campaign, and talked by phone with a Washington D.C. lawyer named Art Culvahouse, who was in charge of vetting VP candidates. On Thursday morning she met with Senator McCain for an hour or two as well as a short meeting with Cindy McCain. By lunchtime Thursday, Sen. McCain had offered her the job.
Five days, from the initial phone call to the job offer. During that time she didn't have to raise any money. She didn't have to recruit, hire, train and manage a national campaign staff. She didn't have to talk to any newspaper editorial boards, trying to convince them to endorse her. There were no negative stories about her in the newspapers, much less nasty stuff written in blogs. Nobody was running negative campaign ads against her. She didn't have to answer questions from reporters and she didn't have to debate her opponents.
Contrast that with the process of running for President. She would have to raise over $500 million dollars, then decide how best to spend it. She would have to lead a campaign organization of hundreds of paid staff and thousands of volunteers, at both the national and state levels. She would have to be able to articulate a coherent message and not just in ghost-written messages on Facebook. She would have to take questions from reporters and she would have to participate in debates - and her one meet-up with Joe Biden would feel like a cakewalk compared to trying to hold her own with her fellow Republican candidates during the primaries.
Take a good hard look at Sarah Palin's professional and political history up to this point. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that she has the brains, the experience, the temperament or the work ethic to successfully run for president. So Andrew and Geoffrey can relax. It's not going to happen.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Word Of The Day
Our new word for today is "vuvuzela", which is a horn-like noisemaker used by South African soccer fans to express support for their team. Based on press reports coming out the World Cup coverage, the sound it makes is, to put it mildly, annoying.
Up until about five days ago I had never heard of a vuvuzela, and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow Americans hadn't either. Now, it seems, they're everywhere, or at least stories about them are everywhere. When Politico describes off-message Republicans as "vuvuzelas of the fringe," you know a word has gone mainstream.
Up until about five days ago I had never heard of a vuvuzela, and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow Americans hadn't either. Now, it seems, they're everywhere, or at least stories about them are everywhere. When Politico describes off-message Republicans as "vuvuzelas of the fringe," you know a word has gone mainstream.
Monday, June 14, 2010
How Things Change
Readers of my blog know that I think, and write, a lot about change. In particular, I like to contemplate how things in our everyday lives have changed and evolved over the course of my lifetime. An easy way to do this is to read, or re-read, a book that was written 20 or 30 years ago.
I recently re-read "Presumed Innocent," in anticipation of the sequel that was published a few weeks ago and I was struck by the fact that Turow's devilishly clever plot couldn't even have been written today. (Warning: spoiler ahead.) My extensive crime-fighting knowledge, gleaned from watching shows like CSI and Without A Trace, tells me that the book's hero would have been wrongly convicted of the murder based on DNA evidence gathered at the crime scene. There was no DNA analysis back in 1987.
This week-end I re-read "Scruples," the gossipy fashion and retail book that was published in 1978. There were several "Wow, isn't that quaint" moments in the book, including a lawyer sending messages from London to his Beverly Hills office via Telex, another character receiving (and "tearing open") a Cablegram, and a pub where patrons could amuse themselves by playing with "all kinds of those new pinball machines, the electronic ones." One female character who traveled a lot was described as someone who "flew only Pan Am."
For me, however, the true Wow moment came when the author was describing the Christmas shopping season: "Most retailers find that December 10, not a day earlier, is the magic moment for the Christmas rush to begin." Obviously this was back in the days when Christmas decorations didn't appear in stores until after Thanksgiving, and to me it sounds like it was three lifetimes ago.
There's lots of snarky blogging to be done about the overly commercialized, politically correct "holiday" season we all have to endure today so I'll probably have lots more to say about this. For now I'm getting ready to start reading "Scruples Two," which was written in 1992. If there's anything really interesting in it, I'll let you know.
I recently re-read "Presumed Innocent," in anticipation of the sequel that was published a few weeks ago and I was struck by the fact that Turow's devilishly clever plot couldn't even have been written today. (Warning: spoiler ahead.) My extensive crime-fighting knowledge, gleaned from watching shows like CSI and Without A Trace, tells me that the book's hero would have been wrongly convicted of the murder based on DNA evidence gathered at the crime scene. There was no DNA analysis back in 1987.
This week-end I re-read "Scruples," the gossipy fashion and retail book that was published in 1978. There were several "Wow, isn't that quaint" moments in the book, including a lawyer sending messages from London to his Beverly Hills office via Telex, another character receiving (and "tearing open") a Cablegram, and a pub where patrons could amuse themselves by playing with "all kinds of those new pinball machines, the electronic ones." One female character who traveled a lot was described as someone who "flew only Pan Am."
For me, however, the true Wow moment came when the author was describing the Christmas shopping season: "Most retailers find that December 10, not a day earlier, is the magic moment for the Christmas rush to begin." Obviously this was back in the days when Christmas decorations didn't appear in stores until after Thanksgiving, and to me it sounds like it was three lifetimes ago.
There's lots of snarky blogging to be done about the overly commercialized, politically correct "holiday" season we all have to endure today so I'll probably have lots more to say about this. For now I'm getting ready to start reading "Scruples Two," which was written in 1992. If there's anything really interesting in it, I'll let you know.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Missing The Party
Even though I'm not a big hockey fan, it's still exciting to see the Chicago Blackhawks win the Stanley Cup. One of my friends mentioned on Facebook that she was going to the big parade this morning, which sounded pretty cool, although since I'm writing this post from Portland attending the parade isn't an option for me. That caused me to realize that this is the third time in the last five years that I've been out-of-town during a big-deal event in Chicago.
In October, 2005, I was on my way to visit friends in London when the White Sox won the World Series. And I literally mean "on my way." I was on the flight from Chicago to London when the pilot made the announcement that the Sox had won, which caused lots of cheering and clapping from the passengers. Unfortunately, I didn't get the full "group of strangers sharing a common happiness" experience when the announcement was made, because I was in the little airplane lavatory at the time, but never mind that. It was a great moment in Chicago's history.
By November, 2008, those same friends had moved to Dubai and I was visiting them there on election night, so I experienced the historic election and Grant Park celebration by watching it virtually on my friend's laptop.
Now I'm once again sharing an exciting Chicago moment from afar. Don't misunderstand - I'm having a great time here in Portland and there's nowhere I'd rather be. And for the record, I was also here for Portland's last (well, er, only,) World Championship In Sports moment, which was when the TrailBlazers won the NBA finals back in 1977. No watching stuff online in those days - you had to be there.
So no parade for me today, but I'm a proud Chicagoan just the same. One more time, with feeling: Go Hawks!
In October, 2005, I was on my way to visit friends in London when the White Sox won the World Series. And I literally mean "on my way." I was on the flight from Chicago to London when the pilot made the announcement that the Sox had won, which caused lots of cheering and clapping from the passengers. Unfortunately, I didn't get the full "group of strangers sharing a common happiness" experience when the announcement was made, because I was in the little airplane lavatory at the time, but never mind that. It was a great moment in Chicago's history.
By November, 2008, those same friends had moved to Dubai and I was visiting them there on election night, so I experienced the historic election and Grant Park celebration by watching it virtually on my friend's laptop.
Now I'm once again sharing an exciting Chicago moment from afar. Don't misunderstand - I'm having a great time here in Portland and there's nowhere I'd rather be. And for the record, I was also here for Portland's last (well, er, only,) World Championship In Sports moment, which was when the TrailBlazers won the NBA finals back in 1977. No watching stuff online in those days - you had to be there.
So no parade for me today, but I'm a proud Chicagoan just the same. One more time, with feeling: Go Hawks!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Still Wondering What's Going On In South Carolina
Really - no one knows what's going on down there, or what the outcome will be. Amid all the media coverage, here are a couple of fresh takes on the situation:
Palmetto Political Passions
Why I'm Rooting For Nikki Haley
Palmetto Political Passions
Why I'm Rooting For Nikki Haley
Is South Carolina The Friskiest State?
It's sure beginning to look that way. Another political consultant has come forward to say that he had sex with Nikki Haley, and again she's denying it. So what's really going on down there? Who knows? She's been consistent in her denials of any kind of infidelity in her marriage and frankly, I want to believe her. But that begs the question: Why would two men, both of whom are married, by the way, both come forward and announce that they had been fooling around with a woman they're not married to? The easy answer is that it's political dirty tricks, intended to derail Haley's candidacy for governor, and that could be the case, but they're also potentially derailing their own marriages, not to mention their professional credibility.
The S.C. primary is this Tuesday and you bet I'll be watching to see what happens.
The S.C. primary is this Tuesday and you bet I'll be watching to see what happens.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Sex Scandal in South Carolina
If this post's title makes you think of "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" Luv-Guv Mark Sanford, you're way behind the times. There's a new political sex scandal in S.C. and it's been keeping me entertained, and puzzled, as I've watched it unfold this week. This one's different than the usual sex scandal in a couple of ways. For one thing, the politician involved is a woman, a 38-year-old married mother of two named Nikki Haley, who's running for governor to replace Mark Sanford. For another, the story went public when the so-called "other man," a political blogger named Will Folks, announced it himself in a blog post Monday morning, saying "I had an inappropriate physical relationship with Nikki." Ms. Haley issued a statement "categorically" denying anything improper and it's been "he said, she said" ever since. It would seem that one of them is lying, but which one, and more intriguingly, why?
If there was an affair and Ms. Haley is the one who's lying, that's understandable but also dangerous, not too mention really stupid and probably doomed to fail. This stuff always comes out, and the more emphatic the statements of denial have been, the more difficult it is to walk them back. That fact alone almost makes me think she must be telling the truth - could any politician in America really think they could get away with trying to keep an affair hidden, once it starts to bubble to the surface?
On the other hand, if there really was no affair and the blogger just made it up out of thin air, you have to ask why? What's the upside for him?
There are a lot of layers to this. Mr. Folks used to be a political consultant and he actually did some work for Ms. Haley in 2007-2008, and his blog has been supportive of her candidacy for the governorship. He has released cell phone records that show hundreds of conversations between himself and Ms. Haley, some of which took place in the middle of the night and lasted for an hour or more, which sounds slightly outside the norm but doesn't prove anything. He's also released text messages, including some between himself and Ms. Haley's campaign manager that sound like they're trying to hide something but also don't really prove anything. Ms. Haley continues to deny the affair, saying it's a smear campaign and politics as usual, and all those phone calls were just business as usual between professional colleagues.
So what's the real story? Who knows. I'm going to keep watching to see how it all ends and something tells me it won't be pretty.
If there was an affair and Ms. Haley is the one who's lying, that's understandable but also dangerous, not too mention really stupid and probably doomed to fail. This stuff always comes out, and the more emphatic the statements of denial have been, the more difficult it is to walk them back. That fact alone almost makes me think she must be telling the truth - could any politician in America really think they could get away with trying to keep an affair hidden, once it starts to bubble to the surface?
On the other hand, if there really was no affair and the blogger just made it up out of thin air, you have to ask why? What's the upside for him?
There are a lot of layers to this. Mr. Folks used to be a political consultant and he actually did some work for Ms. Haley in 2007-2008, and his blog has been supportive of her candidacy for the governorship. He has released cell phone records that show hundreds of conversations between himself and Ms. Haley, some of which took place in the middle of the night and lasted for an hour or more, which sounds slightly outside the norm but doesn't prove anything. He's also released text messages, including some between himself and Ms. Haley's campaign manager that sound like they're trying to hide something but also don't really prove anything. Ms. Haley continues to deny the affair, saying it's a smear campaign and politics as usual, and all those phone calls were just business as usual between professional colleagues.
So what's the real story? Who knows. I'm going to keep watching to see how it all ends and something tells me it won't be pretty.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
The Lure Of Fame
Back in February, Newsweek writer Jonathan Darman posted an on-line article entitled The Quiet Dignity of Rielle Hunter. In it, he pointed out that although everyone from Elizabeth Edwards to Andrew Young to Rielle's friend Pigeon O'Brien had been talking publicly about her, Rielle herself had remained silent and out of the limelight since the scandal broke in August, 2008. At the time, I wondered if her child support financial agreement with John Edwards included some kind of I-will-not-talk-to-the-press clause, but whatever the reason for her silence, it struck me as the right thing to do, not only for her own dignity but also to protect the privacy of her daughter. That all changed a few weeks later when the GQ article came out, accompanied by pictures of Rielle posing suggestively in bed in her underwear.
Reaction to the article, and in particular to the pictures, was pretty negative, which caused Rielle to call Barbara Walters and complain that she didn't think they'd actually publish the underwear pictures, and now, in an effort to set everyone straight on who she really is, Rielle is talking to Oprah. The interview is scheduled to be shown on Thursday and yes, my VCR is already set to record it. This puts me in the position of simultaneously snarking on someone for going on television to spill their guts at the same time I'm making sure I don't miss a word of it.
Snarkiness aside, I really am curious about what Rielle hopes to accomplish by doing this second interview. The GQ story didn't exactly enhance her reputation, but instead of retreating back into her dignified silence, she seems to think that if she just keeps talking eventually everyone will understand. The fact that that's not likely to happen is only part of the reason why I think the Oprah interview is a mistake. I also think she's seriously misunderstanding how fame and the media really work. Oprah's running the interview on the first day of the May sweeps period, which tells you everything you need to know about what's in this for Oprah. As far as what's in it for Rielle, who knows.
Reaction to the article, and in particular to the pictures, was pretty negative, which caused Rielle to call Barbara Walters and complain that she didn't think they'd actually publish the underwear pictures, and now, in an effort to set everyone straight on who she really is, Rielle is talking to Oprah. The interview is scheduled to be shown on Thursday and yes, my VCR is already set to record it. This puts me in the position of simultaneously snarking on someone for going on television to spill their guts at the same time I'm making sure I don't miss a word of it.
Snarkiness aside, I really am curious about what Rielle hopes to accomplish by doing this second interview. The GQ story didn't exactly enhance her reputation, but instead of retreating back into her dignified silence, she seems to think that if she just keeps talking eventually everyone will understand. The fact that that's not likely to happen is only part of the reason why I think the Oprah interview is a mistake. I also think she's seriously misunderstanding how fame and the media really work. Oprah's running the interview on the first day of the May sweeps period, which tells you everything you need to know about what's in this for Oprah. As far as what's in it for Rielle, who knows.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Earth Day: Good, Bad or Indifferent
I'm not a big fan of Earth Day. I want to be a good global citizen and do what I can to minimize the environmental impact of my time here on this earth, and I want everyone else to, too. Even with the best of intentions, however, it's not always clear how to do that, and most of the Earth Day "How You Can Help Save The Planet" articles I'm seeing today aren't helping much. For example, an article on the Huffington Post, titled "Seven Things You Can Do For Earth Day That Actually Matter," includes such gems as "Get rid of your car" and "Don't have a baby."
I would love to get rid of my car and live like a European, but as a resident of suburban Chicago it's just not possible. We don't have the public transportation infrastructure for that kind of lifestyle, and neither does any other city in America, which makes the suggestion in the Huff Post article not only unrealistic but really stupid. As for not having a baby, well, okay, I wasn't planning to, but a lot of other people are, not to mention all the people that already have kids, and I have to ask, do the geniuses at HuffPost really believe that telling people not to have kids is the way to save the planet?
I remember the first Earth Day, in 1970, when I was in junior high school and most of the kids in my school walked home instead of taking the bus. The irony was that the buses still ran their routes that day, and every other day since then, making our gesture of walking home symbolic but ultimately meaningless. 40 years later, as far as I can tell, most of the Earth Day activities are equally superficial, which makes Earth Day itself practically meaningless. If publishing articles with insultingly stupid ideas like telling people not to have kids is what now passes for "celebrating" Earth Day, it's probably time for Earth Day to go away.
I would love to get rid of my car and live like a European, but as a resident of suburban Chicago it's just not possible. We don't have the public transportation infrastructure for that kind of lifestyle, and neither does any other city in America, which makes the suggestion in the Huff Post article not only unrealistic but really stupid. As for not having a baby, well, okay, I wasn't planning to, but a lot of other people are, not to mention all the people that already have kids, and I have to ask, do the geniuses at HuffPost really believe that telling people not to have kids is the way to save the planet?
I remember the first Earth Day, in 1970, when I was in junior high school and most of the kids in my school walked home instead of taking the bus. The irony was that the buses still ran their routes that day, and every other day since then, making our gesture of walking home symbolic but ultimately meaningless. 40 years later, as far as I can tell, most of the Earth Day activities are equally superficial, which makes Earth Day itself practically meaningless. If publishing articles with insultingly stupid ideas like telling people not to have kids is what now passes for "celebrating" Earth Day, it's probably time for Earth Day to go away.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth!
Happy Birthday to Queen Elizabeth, who appears to be hale and hearty at the age of 84. It's so fascinating to me to contemplate her life and legacy - she's been the Queen of England since 1952, my entire lifetime and then some, and for the majority of the British people she's the only Monarch they've ever known. By comparison, the President of the United States when Elizabeth became queen in 1952 was Harry Truman, and we've had 11 additional heads of state since then. This line of thinking leads to the uncomfortable question of when Prince Charles will ever get to be King.
Being the heir apparent is a strange and awkward role - the only way for Prince Charles to fulfill his career destiny is for his mother to die. And given the longevity of the Queen's female ancestors (Queens Victoria, Alexandra and Mary all lived into their 80s, and the Queen Mum famously lived to be 101), Charles could still have a long wait in front of him. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, Charles won't inherit the throne until 2027, when he will be 79 years old. Queen Victoria's eldest son and heir, who also had a decades-long wait before becoming King at age 59, is reported to have said something along the lines of "I don't mind praying to the eternal father but I must be the only man in the country afflicted with an eternal mother." I can't help wondering if Prince Charles feels the same.
Then there's Prince William. Recent rumors that he and his girlfriend Kate Middleton may be getting married soon have revived talk about the possibility that the Queen would somehow bypass Charles and name William as the next King. All credible evidence says that the chances of that happening fall somewhere between remote and "when hell freezes over." There are all kinds of traditional and historic reasons why I believe it would never happen, not the least of which is the sorry spectacle of the way things played out after King Edward the 8th abdicated back in 1936. That was the last time they messed around with the succession and it wasn't pretty. Finally, there's this: Does anyone really think Prince William would want to be king while his father is still around?
Being the heir apparent is a strange and awkward role - the only way for Prince Charles to fulfill his career destiny is for his mother to die. And given the longevity of the Queen's female ancestors (Queens Victoria, Alexandra and Mary all lived into their 80s, and the Queen Mum famously lived to be 101), Charles could still have a long wait in front of him. If the Queen lives as long as her mother, Charles won't inherit the throne until 2027, when he will be 79 years old. Queen Victoria's eldest son and heir, who also had a decades-long wait before becoming King at age 59, is reported to have said something along the lines of "I don't mind praying to the eternal father but I must be the only man in the country afflicted with an eternal mother." I can't help wondering if Prince Charles feels the same.
Then there's Prince William. Recent rumors that he and his girlfriend Kate Middleton may be getting married soon have revived talk about the possibility that the Queen would somehow bypass Charles and name William as the next King. All credible evidence says that the chances of that happening fall somewhere between remote and "when hell freezes over." There are all kinds of traditional and historic reasons why I believe it would never happen, not the least of which is the sorry spectacle of the way things played out after King Edward the 8th abdicated back in 1936. That was the last time they messed around with the succession and it wasn't pretty. Finally, there's this: Does anyone really think Prince William would want to be king while his father is still around?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Do You Know Who Justin Bieber Is?
The new issue of People Magazine has Justin Bieber on the cover, along with a headline that identifies him as the "World's Biggest Pop Star". If that doesn't get you going, the sub-headline further states that he's the "hottest 16-year-old on the planet."
I must really be out of it because until 2 days ago, when his name was mentioned as a performer at the White House Easter Egg Roll, I had never heard of Justin Bieber. He's the so-called biggest pop star on earth and I had literally never heard his name.
I don't know if I'm really that isolated or if I'm just not paying attention to the latest teeny-bopper rock star sensation, but whatever. I've heard of him now and "world's biggest pop star" is close enough to "king of pop" that I can't help thinking of Michael Jackson. What are the chances that we'll still be talking about Justin Bieber in 25 years?
I must really be out of it because until 2 days ago, when his name was mentioned as a performer at the White House Easter Egg Roll, I had never heard of Justin Bieber. He's the so-called biggest pop star on earth and I had literally never heard his name.
I don't know if I'm really that isolated or if I'm just not paying attention to the latest teeny-bopper rock star sensation, but whatever. I've heard of him now and "world's biggest pop star" is close enough to "king of pop" that I can't help thinking of Michael Jackson. What are the chances that we'll still be talking about Justin Bieber in 25 years?
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Looking Forward To The Winter Olympics
On the Today show this morning NBC was previewing the 2010 Winter Olympics, and in no particular order, here's a few of the things that were interesting to me:
This is the third time Canada has hosted the games, and it's the only country that has never won a Gold medal at their own home games. The two previous Canadian Olympics were the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal and the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary. Everybody in Canada really hopes Canada wins a Gold medal this time. Their best bet? Hockey.
Vancouver is the largest city ever to host the Winter Games.
I've always loved the opening theme song that NBC plays at the start of each Olympic program. The song was actually introduced by ABC, back when they were the main network televising the Olympics. When I was in college, the school band would play that song at home football games as our team ran out onto the field at the start of the game. Go Wildcats!
NBC highlighted some of the American athletes who are expected to win gold, including skier Lindsay Vonn and speed skater Apolo Anton Ohno. If Ohno wins two medals, he will have a total of eight, more (winter) Olympic medals than any other American. The current record-holder is Bonnie Blair, who has seven.
In the entire Olympic preview segment there was no mention of figure skating, which is usually the biggest of the big deal events at the Winter Games. What that really means is that this year there is no hotshot It Girl American skater who is considered to at least have a shot at the Gold medal. As I'm writing about this, I realize that even though I watched the U.S. national figure skating championships a couple of weeks ago, I don't remember the name of the skater who won, much less who came in second. That's not good news for NBC, which can usually count on skating events for the highest ratings of the games. That's not going to happen if the American skaters aren't doing well.
This is the third time Canada has hosted the games, and it's the only country that has never won a Gold medal at their own home games. The two previous Canadian Olympics were the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal and the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary. Everybody in Canada really hopes Canada wins a Gold medal this time. Their best bet? Hockey.
Vancouver is the largest city ever to host the Winter Games.
I've always loved the opening theme song that NBC plays at the start of each Olympic program. The song was actually introduced by ABC, back when they were the main network televising the Olympics. When I was in college, the school band would play that song at home football games as our team ran out onto the field at the start of the game. Go Wildcats!
NBC highlighted some of the American athletes who are expected to win gold, including skier Lindsay Vonn and speed skater Apolo Anton Ohno. If Ohno wins two medals, he will have a total of eight, more (winter) Olympic medals than any other American. The current record-holder is Bonnie Blair, who has seven.
In the entire Olympic preview segment there was no mention of figure skating, which is usually the biggest of the big deal events at the Winter Games. What that really means is that this year there is no hotshot It Girl American skater who is considered to at least have a shot at the Gold medal. As I'm writing about this, I realize that even though I watched the U.S. national figure skating championships a couple of weeks ago, I don't remember the name of the skater who won, much less who came in second. That's not good news for NBC, which can usually count on skating events for the highest ratings of the games. That's not going to happen if the American skaters aren't doing well.
Finally, to get us all in the mood to watch the Opening Ceremony this coming Friday night, NBC showed some highlights from the last OC, which was Beijing in 2008. For me, that brought back memories of the other "breaking news" story that was happening the same night - do you remember what it was? Here's a hint: John Edwards confesses. That's right, his big "Yes, I had an affair" interview was on Nightline at the same time that NBC was showing the lavish events from Beijing. According to news reporting at the time, Edwards specifically decided to do the interview that day, and insisted to ABC that it be shown on Nightline, because he was hoping all the Olympic hoopla would drown out his news and nobody would notice. Unfortunately for Edwards, the interview was taped earlier in the day and ABC began promoting it that afternoon. By dinnertime everyone on the planet was talking about it. We now know, of course, that pretty much everything John Edwards said that night was a lie, and with hindsight it would have been so much better (for him) if he had just come clean and told the whole truth. If he had, we wouldn't still be talking about it now.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Would You Vote For This Candidate?
In California, Carly Fiorina is running for Barbara Boxer's senate seat. She's got a new internet campaign ad that's in the process of going viral because it's so, so... so something. Strange? Unbelievable? Scary? Demonic? Watch it here and then decide. Does this ad make you want to vote for her?
Friday, January 29, 2010
Yes, There Is A Sex Tape
If you've been wondering whether or not there really is a sex tape featuring John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, it looks as if there is. Apparently Ms. Hunter has requested a restraining order against Andrew Young, the former Edwards staffer who wrote a book about the affair, demanding that he return a video tape that is of a "very personal, private nature."
News reports are saying that Ms Hunter has been granted a temporary restraining order by a North Carolina court.
There are lots of good lessons to be learned from the whole Edwards mess, but surely the most obvious one is this: NEVER, EVER MAKE A SEX TAPE.
Read about it here.
News reports are saying that Ms Hunter has been granted a temporary restraining order by a North Carolina court.
There are lots of good lessons to be learned from the whole Edwards mess, but surely the most obvious one is this: NEVER, EVER MAKE A SEX TAPE.
Read about it here.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
WTF Headline of the Day
We haven't had a headline in a while and this one was too good to pass up. Enjoy!
Man Hides 44 Lizards In Pants
Man Hides 44 Lizards In Pants
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Almost Time For The Olympics
Even though it's only been a few weeks, the trauma and drama of the unsuccessful Chicago 2016 Olympic bid now seems so 2009. It's time to move on, and what better way to do that than to get into the spirit of the 2010 Winter games, which are now less than 3 weeks away. The marquee sport of the Winter games, of course, is ice skating, and watching the finals of the U.S. National Championships last night has definitely put me in the Olympic mood.
The Winter Olympics don't get nearly as much publicity as the Summer ones do, and in fact, the Winter games always kind of sneak up on me. There's certainly no athlete with Michael Phelps-level star power and press coverage to generate advance interest in these games, and I had never heard of the two women who finished first and second last night and will now represent the U.S. in Vancouver. Apparently a skater from South Korea is favored to win the Olympic gold medal.
NBC is trying to generate excitement however, and I've begun to see their commercials for the upcoming coverage. I'm reminded that like so many other things, the Olympics are now, first and foremost, big business. NBC will make their profit (or not) based on how much advertising they can sell and they've started to hype the games big time as we count down to the opening ceremony. There's been some talk that the Vancouver games may feel like a bit of a letdown after all the excitement of Beijing, but I'm not too worried about that. The Winter games have always had a smaller, more intimate feel to them that I actually kind of like.
By the way, we now know the host cities for the next four Olympics: 2010 in Vancouver, 2012 in London, 2014 in Sochi, Russia, and 2016 in Rio de Janiero. Do you know which cities are bidding for the next games after that, which are the 2018 Winter Olympics? They are Munich; PyeongChang, South Korea and Annecy, France. GamesBids is a cool site that tracks everything related to Olympic bids, and if you're interested, the 2018 winning bid will be announced on July 6, 2011. Any guesses?
In the meantime, on to Vancouver and let the games begin!
The Winter Olympics don't get nearly as much publicity as the Summer ones do, and in fact, the Winter games always kind of sneak up on me. There's certainly no athlete with Michael Phelps-level star power and press coverage to generate advance interest in these games, and I had never heard of the two women who finished first and second last night and will now represent the U.S. in Vancouver. Apparently a skater from South Korea is favored to win the Olympic gold medal.
NBC is trying to generate excitement however, and I've begun to see their commercials for the upcoming coverage. I'm reminded that like so many other things, the Olympics are now, first and foremost, big business. NBC will make their profit (or not) based on how much advertising they can sell and they've started to hype the games big time as we count down to the opening ceremony. There's been some talk that the Vancouver games may feel like a bit of a letdown after all the excitement of Beijing, but I'm not too worried about that. The Winter games have always had a smaller, more intimate feel to them that I actually kind of like.
By the way, we now know the host cities for the next four Olympics: 2010 in Vancouver, 2012 in London, 2014 in Sochi, Russia, and 2016 in Rio de Janiero. Do you know which cities are bidding for the next games after that, which are the 2018 Winter Olympics? They are Munich; PyeongChang, South Korea and Annecy, France. GamesBids is a cool site that tracks everything related to Olympic bids, and if you're interested, the 2018 winning bid will be announced on July 6, 2011. Any guesses?
In the meantime, on to Vancouver and let the games begin!
Friday, January 22, 2010
"Hell Hath No Fury ...
... like a woman scorned." True? Oh, you bet it's true, as pretty much any woman can tell you. The wisdom of those words has been reinforced in my mind several times recently, due to situations both personal and not.
First, the personal one. One day last week when I opened my e-mail, I had a message from an ex-boyfriend, or at least it looked that way before I clicked on it and opened it. He and I are in touch on a very casual basis, and the subject line was blank, so I admit I was curious when I saw his e-mail address in my In box. Inside, there was no message, just a link, which connected me to a website that sells Viagra and Cialis. Very strange. Later that day I got a second message, this time really from him, saying that someone had hacked into his address book and sent out some rogue messages. He didn't say who did it, but from where I sit it's a stunt that has "pissed off ex-girlfriend" written all over it.
In the public domain, the scandals currently enveloping Tiger Woods and John Edwards both appear to have elements of one or more scorned women at work. In Tiger's case, not only did his wife feel compelled to express her feelings by using a golf club as a battering ram, several of the girlfriends have rushed to speak out and cash in, leading one pundit to opine that if you're going to cheat, you should pick someone who has absolutely nothing to gain by being featured on the cover of US magazine.
As for John Edwards, the hell and the fury bubbling up around him this week is a result of screw-ups too numerous to count, but I read one article that speculated that the National Enquirer's original source for the story and for the pictures-of-John-holding-a-baby was actually baby-mama Rielle Hunter herself. The theory is that if the scandal destroyed not only his political career but his marriage as well, he would then be free to marry Rielle. I don't know if Ms. Hunter was the one who leaked the story or not, but it certainly sounds like something a scorned woman would do.
So I was in the "Just when you thought you've heard everything" zone when I came upon this. Go to Google News and type in "Charles Phillips" if you want all the sordid details. The short version is that a rich (and married) guy's ex-mistress set out to embarrass him, and it appears to have worked. Hell hath no fury? Yeah, that sounds about right.
First, the personal one. One day last week when I opened my e-mail, I had a message from an ex-boyfriend, or at least it looked that way before I clicked on it and opened it. He and I are in touch on a very casual basis, and the subject line was blank, so I admit I was curious when I saw his e-mail address in my In box. Inside, there was no message, just a link, which connected me to a website that sells Viagra and Cialis. Very strange. Later that day I got a second message, this time really from him, saying that someone had hacked into his address book and sent out some rogue messages. He didn't say who did it, but from where I sit it's a stunt that has "pissed off ex-girlfriend" written all over it.
In the public domain, the scandals currently enveloping Tiger Woods and John Edwards both appear to have elements of one or more scorned women at work. In Tiger's case, not only did his wife feel compelled to express her feelings by using a golf club as a battering ram, several of the girlfriends have rushed to speak out and cash in, leading one pundit to opine that if you're going to cheat, you should pick someone who has absolutely nothing to gain by being featured on the cover of US magazine.
As for John Edwards, the hell and the fury bubbling up around him this week is a result of screw-ups too numerous to count, but I read one article that speculated that the National Enquirer's original source for the story and for the pictures-of-John-holding-a-baby was actually baby-mama Rielle Hunter herself. The theory is that if the scandal destroyed not only his political career but his marriage as well, he would then be free to marry Rielle. I don't know if Ms. Hunter was the one who leaked the story or not, but it certainly sounds like something a scorned woman would do.
So I was in the "Just when you thought you've heard everything" zone when I came upon this. Go to Google News and type in "Charles Phillips" if you want all the sordid details. The short version is that a rich (and married) guy's ex-mistress set out to embarrass him, and it appears to have worked. Hell hath no fury? Yeah, that sounds about right.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Apocalypse Is Upon Us ...
I had trouble deciding on a headline for today's post, given the completely unfathomable weirdness of what I'm about to write about. I also considered "The End Of Civilization As We Know It," and, simply, "A New Low..." So what is it exactly that's got me in such a lather? As I do every Wednesday, I just checked out the weekly "What's in the Fabloids" feature on The Daily Beast, and what did I see but Nadya Suleman, a.k.a. Octomom, posing in a bikini on the cover of the new issue of Star magazine. Oh how the mind reels ...
I've blogged about Nadya before. I've blogged about pictures of women in bikinis being used to sell magazines before. I consider myself to be a pretty astute observer of pop culture, but even so, it never occurred to me that I would be using "Nadya in a bikini" and "this week's cover story" in the same blog post, much less in the same sentence. She actually looks pretty good, fitness-wise, especially for a woman who's given birth to 14 kids, but heaven help us, she's trying to be sexy too, hooking her thumb under her suit bottom in the big picture, and looking flirtatiously over her shoulder in the small one. It's not working for me, but then I'm so not the target audience for such things.
My understanding is that tabloids pay for posed cover shots, and Nadya has to support her family, but did it have to be in a bikini? Unlike other tabloid cover girls, like Heidi Montag and the Kardashian sisters, Nadya's fame and public persona are not based on her sexuality, at least not yet, but maybe Star will change all that. It will be interesting to see how well this issue sells. If we all take a solemn vow and promise not to buy it, maybe we can help to ensure that Nadya in a bikini is a one-time-only event and not the beginning of a trend. Here's hoping...
I've blogged about Nadya before. I've blogged about pictures of women in bikinis being used to sell magazines before. I consider myself to be a pretty astute observer of pop culture, but even so, it never occurred to me that I would be using "Nadya in a bikini" and "this week's cover story" in the same blog post, much less in the same sentence. She actually looks pretty good, fitness-wise, especially for a woman who's given birth to 14 kids, but heaven help us, she's trying to be sexy too, hooking her thumb under her suit bottom in the big picture, and looking flirtatiously over her shoulder in the small one. It's not working for me, but then I'm so not the target audience for such things.
My understanding is that tabloids pay for posed cover shots, and Nadya has to support her family, but did it have to be in a bikini? Unlike other tabloid cover girls, like Heidi Montag and the Kardashian sisters, Nadya's fame and public persona are not based on her sexuality, at least not yet, but maybe Star will change all that. It will be interesting to see how well this issue sells. If we all take a solemn vow and promise not to buy it, maybe we can help to ensure that Nadya in a bikini is a one-time-only event and not the beginning of a trend. Here's hoping...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Memories of Keith
Keith's obituary was published in the Daily Herald on Friday, and it's been so heartwarming to read the comments, mostly from former students. A great example of Keith's legacy after 32 years of teaching.
You can read them here.
You can read them here.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Funeral Information
Keith's funeral has been set for 10:30 a.m. this Saturday, at Holy Family Parish in Inverness.
Click here for the church's home page.
Click here for the church's home page.
One Journey Ends, Another Begins...
Keith died this morning, about 7:20 a.m., and for everyone who loved him, it is comforting to know that his suffering is over and he is safely in the hands of the Lord. Even so, tonight my heart is broken and I'm feeling such profound sadness at the loss of this wonderful man.
I've started to write down some of my favorite memories of Keith and I'll be posting some of that here as we walk through the next few days. I'll add information about the funeral and any other events as those details are finalized.
For now I'm going back to YouTube, and I'm going to sing along as loud as I can:
So let's worship Him with a mighty voice, like we're already with Him in paradise, Praise God on high! Praise God!
I've started to write down some of my favorite memories of Keith and I'll be posting some of that here as we walk through the next few days. I'll add information about the funeral and any other events as those details are finalized.
For now I'm going back to YouTube, and I'm going to sing along as loud as I can:
So let's worship Him with a mighty voice, like we're already with Him in paradise, Praise God on high! Praise God!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Update
Here is the text of an e-mail message Sue Basten sent out this morning:
Dear Friends,
The time is near when God will graciously take Keith home where his tears and suffering will be no more. Per Marty, Keith's blood pressure is dropping and the doctor said Keith will pass-on either today or tomorrow.
Please continue your loving prayers for our Dearest Keith, Cindy & their daughters. They are forever grateful.
God bless you.
Dear Friends,
The time is near when God will graciously take Keith home where his tears and suffering will be no more. Per Marty, Keith's blood pressure is dropping and the doctor said Keith will pass-on either today or tomorrow.
Please continue your loving prayers for our Dearest Keith, Cindy & their daughters. They are forever grateful.
God bless you.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
When The Time Comes ...
I spoke with Lynn Robinson yesterday afternoon and she advised me that Cindy and her family have started to make some decisions. When the time comes, Keith's funeral service will be held at Holy Family in Inverness. They're talking about having a memorial event at Willow Creek at some point as well.
Another Song That's Comforting Me
Praise God On High, by Rory Noland, was one of my favorite worship songs when I was attending Willow Creek. In fact, I had said that I wanted it sung at my own funeral, when that day comes. I had been hearing the song in my head for a couple of days, and sure enough, it didn't take long to find it on YouTube.
Here's the YouTube link, and I hope it comforts you as much as it's been comforting me.
Here's the YouTube link, and I hope it comforts you as much as it's been comforting me.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
On Eagles' Wings
This video is a nice version of On Eagles' Wings that I found on YouTube. It's giving me a great deal of comfort.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Update
For anyone who didn't see Sue's most recent e-mail, apparently Keith is too weak to be moved to the hospice so he will remain in the hospital and receive hospice care there.
All of our prayers continue for Cindy and Keith, and their family.
All of our prayers continue for Cindy and Keith, and their family.
Keith and Cindy
To everyone who loves Keith and Cindy, this is the text of an e-mail message I sent to Sue Basten when she asked me how Cindy sounded when I spoke with her Thursday afternoon:
Cindy sounded pretty matter-of-fact, considering the circumstances. I think both she and Keith are at peace about the decision they made (regarding not pursuing any further treatment) and they want to experience the next few days with as much love, gentleness and grace as possible, surrounded by their family. I'm sure her emotions are very deep and very painful, but she's working very hard to hold herself together.
She did express some humor, such as Keith dealing with the reality of what happens when you're hospitalized (assistance from a nurse with personal stuff such as bathing, for example). She said she and Keith kind of laughed about that, which I thought was positive. (What else can you do but laugh, so to speak.) I also forgot to mention before that her Mom is coming in Saturday, which will be good.
Overall I was encouraged by my conversation with Cindy, in the sense that she sounded like she's accepted a difficult and unchangeable truth and is walking through it with God's help. For me, I'm particularly grateful that Andrea and her family got here safely, because I was very concerned about that.
I will update this blog whenever there is something to share. Kimberly
Cindy sounded pretty matter-of-fact, considering the circumstances. I think both she and Keith are at peace about the decision they made (regarding not pursuing any further treatment) and they want to experience the next few days with as much love, gentleness and grace as possible, surrounded by their family. I'm sure her emotions are very deep and very painful, but she's working very hard to hold herself together.
She did express some humor, such as Keith dealing with the reality of what happens when you're hospitalized (assistance from a nurse with personal stuff such as bathing, for example). She said she and Keith kind of laughed about that, which I thought was positive. (What else can you do but laugh, so to speak.) I also forgot to mention before that her Mom is coming in Saturday, which will be good.
Overall I was encouraged by my conversation with Cindy, in the sense that she sounded like she's accepted a difficult and unchangeable truth and is walking through it with God's help. For me, I'm particularly grateful that Andrea and her family got here safely, because I was very concerned about that.
I will update this blog whenever there is something to share. Kimberly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
