Different Mountain

Mountain

Edge of the boat and a mountain

Waterfall

Misty Fjords

This is taken word-for-word, directly from the recording I made immediately after I went inside after our trip through the Misty Fjords. Please excuse any sentence-structure issues or tense problems.

So, we went through this fjord and it was just--so beautiful. I mean... I just kept saying, out loud and to myself, 'this is ridiculously beautiful'. I took some pictures but it just can't capture... y'know 'cause the boat, the boat is so big.

I remember when we first came to the pier and I saw the ship for the first time and it just looked like a building on the water. I mean, of course, we were looking at the back end, but it really looks huge, like an actual building that just happens to be floating. So...the boat is big. It looked big in Vancouver, it looked huge next to Skagway (population 800), and you could see it from almost any spot in town in Keitchikan. I mean, this is a very large ship.

But here...We are going through this fjord (I really need to find out the name) and there are these big mountains on either side of the ship. I'm on the 12th deck, the floor above the pool and it is just really open on both sides and there's no ceiling and--wow. There's a little bit of water on either side of the ship, then--the mountains.

It's the most remarkable experience. I just...I just kept standing there in awe.

I never thought that I was the kind of person who liked seeing stuff. Because, well, because I never enjoyed scenery or like, landscapes. I mean, picture postcards are nice and even most of this trip was just seeing one picture postcard after another. But I never really appreciated it.

But this...I even stopped taking pictures (and believe me, if you ask my family, that's a huge accomplishment) because I was so busy just looking and enjoying the site.

Sick and Tired

Sorry gang, I've been sick for the past few days and haven't felt up to reading/listening to anything, much less writing for you. I'm feeling much better now, so I will soon have some of the posts I promised you. Plus, tomorrow, I'm going into NYC to check out how the city responds to the convention and the protests. So, expect the opinionated Dina to be back in full force.

Hannity and Kerry Supporters

Sean Hannity had an extremely funny segment right before the end of his program. He was asking 'man on the street' in Times Square, NYC, a few political questions.

Here's the way the interview worked for all but one of the 6 or so people I heard:

• Who's the Vice President? I don't know
• Who are you voting for? Kerry
• Jim Curney? Uh yeah
• What policies of his do you like? Ummm (two of them answered after the ummm: Gay Rights or the Environment)
• (for those who answered) What specific environmental (gay rights) policy do you like? I don't know.
• What do you think of his vice-presidential running mate, Mr. Stu uhm Ped? I don't know much about him.
• Can you name one thing that Mr. Curney did in his 19 years as a U.S. Senator? No.

I consider the 'Jim Curney' question to be an artifact of hearing this over the phone. But only one guy answered the 'Stu Ped' (say it out loud) question with 'No, his running mate is John Edwards' (that same guy was also the only one who knew Dick Cheney was the VP) and NONE of them could name anything about his record. Pretty sad...

Don't believe me? Listen for yourself (the last 15 minutes or so)

NYC Protestors

A follow-up to yesterday's post:

The protestors have had their application to protest in Central Park denied by the judge. They have responded by saying that Central Park is a public place and that they intend to protest regardless of the decision.

Good for them.

The City of New York has not provided any reasonable reason to prohibit this protest and I support both the exercise of free speech in all cases as well as the exercise of freedom of assembly especially when the government tries to interfere.

Full disclosure: I have three, less noble, reasons for wanting them to protest in spite of the ruling against them.

1. I want to see how the City is going to react to the illegal protestors,
2. I want to see if Protest Warriors are going to show up, and
3. I want to see how the RNC Protestors react to the Protest Warriors.

I agree with Air America?

Readers of this blog have already figured out that I am not a fan of Air America. In fact, I usually only bring them up when I have a negative response to something a host said. Well, brace yourselves: I actually agree with something I heard yesterday.

Yesterday, on Unfiltered, a show I hadn't heard before, they were complaining about the situation of the protestors of the RNC convention in New York City that is happening next week. As I have previously mentioned, the protestors were to be relegated to the West Side Highway.

Unhappy with this (and reasonably so, I feel), they have brought a lawsuit against the city, demanding to be allowed to protest in Central Park.

So why isn't the city allowing them to protest in Central Park?

Because they are concerned about damage to the lawn.

The lawn?

People attempting to exercise their constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly are being denied those rights because of a LAWN?!?

I found that ridiculous, as did the hosts of Unfiltered.

They were even more offended because they believe that if it were a corporate event or a cultural event (e.g. the recent Dave Matthews concert), they would have been allowed to use the park. But because it is people attempting to use their right to speak freely and peacefully assemble--because it is a political event--they are not allowed.

The hosts of Unfiltered found that unfair.

I agree with them.

I strongly believe that the only reasons why protestors should be prohibited from protesting wherever the hell they want is if they are causing harm to others. Protesting where they would pose a security risk is one such way, tying up streets is another (both in the sense of interfering with emergency vehicles from getting where they need to go and in the sense of preventing innocent bystanders from being able to carry on the activities they need to accomplish).

You cannot protest in a way or a place that is going to make life dangerous for others. 'Peaceably' is an important part of 'peaceably assemble'. It's like the old saying, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's nose" or, in this case, 'Your right to scream your beliefs ends before you shatter my eardrums'.

But Central Park doesn't seem to be a problem. It doesn't seem to be dangerous or cause danger to others. Even the city's lawyer, when making his case to the judge earlier today, didn't attempt to claim that protestors were a security risk (actually, he claimed that it was too late to make arrangements, as if it wasn't the city's fault that they delayed the permit application for months). And heck, the protestors even agreed to post a bond to fix any damage to the precious lawn. So the protestors should be allowed to protest.

However...

I find it interesting that the people making the fuss, complaining about the unfair limits on constitutionally protected speech are the same who were in favor of campaign finance reform, a.k.a. limits on political speech. These are the same people who favor limits on hard money, soft money and any other type of money in politics (unless it comes from George Soros or goes to MoveOn.org). These are people who want to shut down the Swift Boat Vets but who have no qualms with Michael Moore or making a commercial that compares Bush to Hitler.

Funny...

I agree with them in this instance: I just find it slightly ironic that they don't agree with me...

I'm Back...

I'm back from my Alaskan cruise, which I went on with my father, my brother, Grandpa J. and Grandma R.D., my aunts and uncles on my dad's side of the family and my cousins on my dad's side: we totaled 15 people and had a blast.

Right now I'm still at my aunt's house so time with the computer is slightly limited. Plus, tomorrow I'm going with my mom and my stepfather to help move my brother into college. So, entries may be a bit sparse for the next few days, but here are some things to look forward to:

• a discussion of the things I saw on my trip (and pictures!)
• a description of the ship and some of the incredibly nice and helpful people who worked there
• adventures in airports
• a scathing, spoiler-filled review of The Day After Tomorrow (which I saw on the airplane)
• things I learned on a wildlife trip...including the fact that (gasp!) the environment changes even in the absence of human beings

More to come...

Vacation

I'm going on vacation for about a week...this will likely be my last blog until Monday the 23^rd.

I'm going on an Alaskan Cruise with my family...don't feel bad, I'll bring back pictures and even post some for you. I'm so excited!

%&#^@ Commercial Pissing Me Off!

There's this commercial that's been playing on Air America for about a week. The gist of what it says is

'You've heard that you should buckle your seatbelt. It's safer blah, blah, blah... Well, here's a real reason. Cops are going to give you a ticket if they catch you unbuckled as part of their "Click it or Ticket" program. So consider this a warning...because the cops won't give you one.'

This has been pissing me off since I first heard it. I mean the arrogance! What right does the government have to tell you to buckle up? Yes, it is safer, yes you should (and I can't believe the commercial so dismissively says, 'blah, blah, blah'), but those are reasons why you and I should try to convince those we care about to buckle up, not a rationale for government interference.

But speaking of trying to convince others...

When I was little, my mom worked 1 to 3 days a week (it changed over time). When she worked late, Grandpa F. would come over to watch my little brother and me. He would pick us up from school, drive us to Hebrew school or lessons, or take us home and just spend time with us.

One thing I noticed was that he would frequently forget to buckle up. When I reminded him, he would buckle, but he would excuse himself by saying that when he started driving, they didn't even have seatbelts and it was hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I would counter with things like 'it's safer' and 'it's important' (not profound, but what do you want from me? I was in elementary or middle school).

Eventually, he started buckling up without being reminded and I felt good about that.

---

So, why am I writing about this today? What prompted me to finally write a post about something that's been bugging me for a while?

Well, I heard the commercial again today after not hearing it for a day and a half.

And last night, Grandpa F. was in a car accident.

He was getting on the Henry Hudson Parkway (if you live in New York, you may know that that is a dangerous highway: high speeds and no acceleration lanes) when he was cut off and forced to stop short. The car behind him didn't stop in time and there was a crash.

His car was totalled.

He is okay.

Minor bruising only, and most of that is around where his seatbelt tightened up in the crash. But, as was pointed out, if he hadn't had that seatbelt he could have gone through the windshield. If he hadn't been wearing the seatbelt, he probably would have broken his wrists where he was gripping the steering wheel. If he hadn't been wearing the belt...it would have been much worse.

So, when I heard that %&#^@ commercial again today, I was supremely pissed off.

I hate that they are so dismissive about the real issue with not wearing your seatbelt (safety anyone?). I hate that the government acts as though adult citizens need to be told what to do like children. I hate that the state seems to see this as a moneymaking opportunity (what would you call no warnings and expensive tickets for this 'offense'?). I hate the idea of Big Brother deciding what is good and what is bad and using the law to enforce it.

Bottom Line?

I want the people I care about to wear seatbelts.

I don't want the nanny state looking over my shoulder to make sure I comply.

Spoiler Filled Review of M. Night Shymalan's The Village

Seriously now, lots and lots of spoilers ahead. I ruin the surprises (and M. Night Shymalan is known for his surprises.. Really. Unless you have already seen this movie or are sure you won't see it, do not read this entry.

Now, I didn't enjoy this movie as much as I normally would have: there were two groups of people (one in the front row, one a few rows behind me) in the theater with me that were drunk, high or extremely immature: they laughed at serious moments and at people's pain. I would have been seriously annoyed except I was so into the movie.

This movie has a facinating take on fear, it makes me think of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."


An isolated village in 1897 (with a few disturbingly out-of-place elements--look at the the first scene closely) lives in fear of the monsters outside. The monsters threaten the villagers, to the point that they have someone stand guard each night. They have many rituals to attempt to placate the monsters, to discourage them from entering the village, among these, the obsessive hiding of the 'bad color', the painting of the 'safe color' on all of the posts that mark the borders of the village and the absolute prohibition of leaving the village.

Permission to leave is even denied to Lucius Hunt, who wishes to leave the village to get medicine from 'the towns' since a boy has recently died, in part due to the village's lack. Lucius is recognized by the village elders, and others, as having a fearlessness about him. Boys play a game, turning their backs to the woods, towards the mysterious creatures who live there, and see how long they can wait until they get scared: Lucius broke the record a long time ago and no one else has come close to beating him.

He believes that he would be able to make it past the monsters, since they can sense emotions and he is not afraid. He is further convinced of this when he discovers that Noah Percy, a mentally challenged man about his age, has gone into the forest on numerous occasions without being bothered by the beasts: Noah has even been carrying around berries of the bad color (gotten, no doubt, from the woods beyond the village) and he still has not been bothered. But, even after he reveals this to the elders (including his own mother), the elders continue to refuse permission. However, we begin to get hints that the elders have their own secrets...Lucius points out that there is a mysterious locked box in a corner of each elder's house and each elder seems to have a horrific story of losing someone close to them.

Simultaneously, another story is going on: a love story.

A young woman, Ivy Walker, is blind; yet she, in some ways, she sees more than most. She knows every step of the village such that she never needs help finding her way, she has a special relationship with Noah (he obeys and worships her) and she can see the auras of two people so that she knows when they are near by sight, not by voice: her father and Lucius.

One day, shortly after Ivy's sister Kitty proposed marriage to and was turned down by Lucius, Ivy tells him that she knows the reason: Lucius is in love with Ivy, not Kitty. Lucius is completely silent at this statement, which Ivy takes as a question (as she frequently does). She answers the unspoken question like this, "Sometimes we don't do things that we want to do, so that others don't know we want to do them" and reminds him that he stopped touching her, even to hold her arm to help guide her, a long time ago.

One evening, shortly after this revelation, the creatures come. Ivy, rather than immediately hiding with her sister and others under the floorboards, waits for Lucius, sure that he will come to her. She waits, quaking in fear, dangerously close to the creatures, until the faith she had in Lucius is born out: he grabs her, pulls her safely inside the house and into the hiding space with the others.

The next day Lucius apolgizes to the town. He had ventured a few feet beyond the border; the creatures had retaliated. The viewer is left with the knowledge that he will never attempt to convince the elders to let him leave again...

The full reason for this change comes from more than just endangering the village, as he tells Ivy: "[T]he only time I feel fear as others do is when I think of you in harm? That is why I am on this porch, Ivy Walker. I fear for your safety before all others." For all his bravery, Lucius learns fear and learns what lines he will never attempt to cross again.

In any case, that night, the two of them become engaged. The following day, Noah goes to see Lucius; Lucius tries to reassure the mentally challenged Noah that there are many types of love and that Ivy has enough room in her heart...he looks down and sees that Noah has stabbed him. When Ivy finds her fiancee, she is frightened: for the first time, she cannot see his color, his aura.

Understanding that his only chance at survival is medicine from the towns, she begs permission to leave the village. Remember, she has never been the brave one with regards to this, it is only that her love for Lucius that she overcomes her fear, she says, "If he dies, all that is life to me will die with him."

The elders confer and agree and Ivy learns the astonishing truth...

Her father, Edward Walker, takes her to a forbidden shed and shows her a costume: it is one of the creatures. There are no creatures; the elders were inspired by old stories to invent a reason to keep their children close to the village. Seeming to understand, or at least, accept for the time being, their overarching goal, she only asks her father to explain one thing: why the elders would kill livestock. The 'creatures' had been blamed, but if no creatures exist...her father calms her, claiming it was a misguided elder and no more attacks will happen.

Knowing the truth, Ivy leaves the village with two escorts. But her escorts have not been told the truth and so are frightened to enter the forest they have been warned about for all of their lives. Eventually, they both leave her alone to face the forest, which, for her, is shrouded in darkness.

She continues on her journey and then hears breathing. Someone, one of the creatures, is following her...

She knows it is not one of the elders; they would not try to frighten her now. But she remembers that they based the creatures on legends...perhaps the legends were true.

Frightened beyond belief, she still somehow manages to trick the creature into a large pit, one she herself almost died in earlier. After the creature hits bottom, the audience can see his identity: Noah Percy. In that instant, many small discrepencies become clear, but Ivy merely continues her way. Suffice to say, she gets the medicine from an unusual, but clearly hinted at source.

We cut back to the village where the elders are each looking at the items in the mysterious box: photographs and newspaper clippings that belie the time period that they had claimed to be in. It is not 1897, but the late 1990's or after. But the clippings have horrible stories of death, the deaths of the family members of the elders.

And then a photograph. It is of all of the elders, much younger, of course, standing in front of a counseling center. The voice-over has each elder talking about how the person that he or she loved, died. Then Edward Walker's voice: "I am a professor of 19th century history and I have an idea.."

The mystery of the village is solved. These elders, a long time ago, found each other in a counseling center after the violent deaths of people they knew. They decided, in their fear, to retreat from the world and create a simpler, more peaceful, time for themselves and their children.

But to keep their children in the village, they needed to create a reason, a necessity not to go beyond the borders. And so, they created the story of the creatures, but no creature existed as heinous as their own imaginings. They were safe.

Except...

Except that violence entered their village, in the guise of Noah.

Except that they imprisoned their children with a fear as strong as any of the elders had ever felt.

Except that living in this simple, quiet village did not erase their heartache, as one of the elders said, "I lost my sister before I came to the village, I lost the rest of my family after. The heartache is the same. We cannot run from heartache... Heartache is a part of life."

Except that their fear of the outside world was so great, they did not geat life-saving medicines that they knew existed for their children.

Except that they knew something was wrong in the village, that someone was killing the livestock, and since they knew the creatures were a myth, they had no idea what caused it.

The only thing imprisioning them and their children, the only thing that ever imprisoned them, was fear. This is true even for the brave Lucius; his fear for Ivy's safety eventually imprisoned him along with the others.

The elders wanted a place to feel safe. But the way they managed to accomplish this was to cause fear in others.

And they were never truly safe...they just thought they were.

Gut Reaction

This is my gut reaction to first hearing the news; I reserve the right to change my opinion as facts become available.

As you probably have heard if you are listening to the news, Gov. McGreevey has resigned over the fact that he had a gay affair. He has cited the fact that it was an extramarital affair (rather than that it was with a man) as his reason.

Much as I would find it inspiring to find out that a politician would resign over the fact that he is heartsick that he broke his vows to his wife and, thus, cannot be trusted to keep any of his promises, I find this unlikely.

Especially since the claimed affair happened two years ago (took him long enough to start to feel bad about it) and since man he claims to have had the 'consentual' affair with is planning a lawsuit.

Everyone is too caught up with the whole homosexuality aspect. (I understand the reasons why, I just think they are silly.)

But if a woman was innappropriately appointed to a position, then given an $110,000 a year job as a replacement, then quit that job (and its compensation), then reports came out that the woman was planning to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, and then the governor described their relationship as consentual (which is what happened to Golan Cipel) we would be horrified.

We would ask ourselves what was so bad about a job, with compensation of $110,000 a year while allowing you to be close to your consentual lover, that would cause a person to quit.

Men can be victims of sexual harassment too. And the circumstances surrounding Cipel's quitting and McGreevey's decision to resign makes me inclined to believe that there is far more to the story than a man who believes himself unworthy of the office due to an extramarital affair...

Faith: A Monopoly on Self-Rightousness?

The Marks on Morning Sedition were talking about faith. One of them said that, "if you have faith in something, you must think that everyone else is a little bit wrong".

The only thing profound or new about that thought is the idea that it only applies to religious faith.

Any time you talk about 'tolerance' for another point of view, you are saying that, while you think the other guy is wrong, you will tolerate that wrongness.

And religion is far from the only thing where people won't even express tolerance for others: in my experience people who try to to convert me to veganism are as annoying as those who try to convert me to Christianity.

"Flip-Flopping"

This afternoon on my commute home, I was listening to the Randi Rhodes show. Randi was complaining that Bush has flip-flopped.

Her basis for this was that Bush didn't keep a number of his campaign promises. Some I thought were legitimate, for example, he didn't stop (or even seem to slow down) pork-barrel spending: he still hasn't vetoed anything. Others, I thought were less legitimate, for example, he hasn't managed his goal of making health care cheaper: that's an extremely thorny problem to deal with in the best of times and somehow, I think Bush may have been distracted by other things (like, say, oh, attacks on American soil) early in his presidency. Still others were purely partisan: she doesn't like his environmental policy, therefore that was flip-flopping on the environment since he had promised to do good things.

The reason why she was moved to complain to stem from this ad: http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

Now, making no claims as to the veracity of this ad, it is remarkably impressive. Using Kerry's own words, they show how his position has altered...it is still difficult to know where he stands.

All I kept thinking, while Randi was talking is: this is the best counter-claim she can manage?

Outrageous!

Today, on the Sean Hannity show, he and his guest were discussing the fact that a woman, who had had two strokes, was behind in her property taxes. Actually, she was about 6 years behind...a time period sufficient to get the county to attempt to collect. Now that's fair. They were owed between $11,000 and $12,000. In addition, they were owed penalties and administrative costs: also reasonable (especially given the fact that she had had the opportunity to plead hardship earlier on).

So what's the problem?

They sold her house for ~$185,000...she received none of that money--none of the equity that had been added over the years to her house.

Sean was talking to a guest: Steven Levy, a legislator (as he repeated numerous times). Sean was taking the position (which I thought was more than reasonable), that people who default on their taxes should pay the back taxes, should pay the penalties, should even pay any administrative costs involved in the collection of the back taxes and penalties...but anything else, over and above that cost, was theft.

And what position did Steven, the legislator of 15 years, take?

Well, one has to discourage speculators (huh?!?) and one has to apply the law equally (equally apply an unfair law?) and that the media had focused on this one (so it isn't unfair unless it hurts at least two people?) unusual and sensational story.

Steven, the legislator, kept ducking Sean's questions of how this was fair to a woman who had had two strokes; why, just because she hadn't made it down to the legislature to beg her hardship case, did she deserve to lose the entire equity of her house and not just the back taxes, penalties and costs associated with collecting that money? Steven answered, "well, you see, we have to discourage speculators and make there be a real cost associated with not paying your taxes, otherwise people just won't pay them." (He repeated this ad nauseum.)

Hey Steve, one question for you:

Aren't the penalties the way you penalize people for not paying their taxes?

Funny Comment

I was watching CNN and they had someone discussing the horrible abuse of the 527 laws (basically, they allow 'interest groups' like MoveOn.org to evade the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance laws). Interestingly, he wasn't complaining that MoveOn.org was spending ridiculously large sums, nor was he complaining that it was increasingly difficult to track where the money was coming from...

He was complaining that George W. Bush hadn't denounced the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

This is especially amusing because John Kerry hasn't denounced any of those on the left (MoveOn.org as a prime example) who have deliberately and intentionally equated Bush with Hitler. And it is a rare case when he's even asked to denounce the left wing of his party; more often, he builds on their perceptions of Bush as an unequivocally evil man.

As far as I know, Bush has not tried to capitalize on the SwiftVets commercial. Puts him ahead of Kerry in my book.

Spoiler-Filled Review of "Wonderful Town"

Seeing this show was some of the most pure fun I've had on Broadway. The plot, a bit implausible (one of the people I saw the show with called it "corny, but fun"). It is truly an old-time, feel-good Broadway show.

The lead, Donna Murphy as Rush Sherwood, was exciting. Quirky, funny, playing up her character's 'can't get a man, but don't need a man' issues, she showed off her personality through voice, fast-talking, business outfits, gangly leg movements, other quirky body movements, and killer heels to hide the fact that she is shorter than most of her co-stars: all this helps distract from her own beauty, leaving open the possibility of numerous jokes of how she compares unfavorably with her sister Eileen.

Eileen Sherwood, played by Jennifer Westfeldt of the title role in Kissing Jessica Stein, was perfect as the innocent who is 'built' and who attracts the attention (of the wanted and unwanted variety) of every man who wanders by.

The sets were impressive, made of scrim fabric so so as to indicate walls while still showing the street behind them. The lighting was fantastic; indicating the passage of time and the different settings with great skill.

The dancing was so much fun to watch...and this is coming from a girl who, despite my theatre background, usually feels that a show wouldn't miss much by having all dances cut out. Not this show. The dancing enhanced the show in exciting ways, from the opening number where it really demonstrated what Christopher Street (where much of the show takes place) was really like, to the last dance of Act I, which moved the plot along (in ways I'll describe later) to Irish Police Officers dancing with moves deliberately inspired by Riverdance.

And the music: memorable, sharp, toe-tapping and wonderfully executed...Far too few shows on Broadway have music this good. Although, I should mention that they are old-style Broadway tunes: if you are not able to appreciate that type of music, you probably won't enjoy this. As for me? I'm getting the soundtrack as soon as I can get to the mall.

I'm serious: major spoilers ahead. I am detailing several major scenes and the ending.

The show opens with an amusing look at Christopher Street in New York City, where most of the show takes place, through the eyes of a startled tour group at the many varied bohemian types including

• Poets,


• Actors,


• Other Artists,


• Mr. and Mrs. Loomis: better known as Wreck and Helen, who aren't married, but are very happy,


• Violet, a prostitute who is quickly evicted from her basement apartment,


• Officer Lonigan, who is strict about inappropriate behavior and helps with the eviction,


• Appopolous, landlord of Wreck and Helen, and of the basement apartment,


• Speedy Valenti, owner of the The Village Vortex,

Soon, the Sherwood sisters, fresh off the bus from Ohio, enter the scene. Appopolous gets them to rent the basement apartment, before they have a chance to see all of its...peculiarities. As they get ready for bed, a strange man comes in looking for Violet ("Marty sent me"). Eileen runs for help and meets Wreck, a pro football player in the off season who is more than happy to chase off a creep for her.

The sisters go to sleep, homesick for Ohio, but ready to take on New York: Eileen as an actress, Ruth as a writer. The first day is spectacularly unsuccessful: Eileen gets a part but finds out it involves a session on the casting couch, Ruth can't even get an interview.

Days later, Ruth decides to take matters into her own hands and meets an associate editor, Robert Baker, a man of ruined potential, and convinces him to read her stories, shown to the audience as completely over-the-top.

After reading her stories, he goes to her house, but meets Eileen instead: she falls instantly in love with him and, in the space of three sentences, goes from calling him Mr. Baker, then Robert, then Bob. She insists he comes to dinner, forgetting that she has two suitors of her own.

The dinner is, predictably, a disaster. Eileen's earnest suitor, Frank, from Walgreens, is hopelessly outclassed by her other suitor Chick Clark, a newspaperman promising a chance at a job for Ruth, but really just hoping to get into Eileen's pants. Frank leaves after spilling wine on himself, Bob leaves after getting in a fight with Ruth (he thinks her stories demonstrate repression and think they would be better if she wrote what she knew), leaving the women alone with Mr. Clark. He then sends Ruth off on a wild goose chase. As soon as Eileen discovers this, she throws him out.

Then, my favorite scenes happen. Ruth finds the story, Portuguese sailors: unfortunately, they know no English except for "Conga". They follow her home to Christopher street, Conga-ing all the way. The first act ended with the entire cast doing the Conga. Eileen inadvertantly hits Officer Lonigan when she tries to smack a man who pinched her. The last image of the first act consists of Eileen getting hauled off to jail (literally, thrown over Officer Lonigan's shoulder) and Ruth on the shoulders of the Conga-dancing sailors.

So, we open up the second act with Wreck and Helen going into jail with a freshly ironed dress and asking to see Miss Sherwood. The brusque desk sergeant tells them that this is a prison, not a hotel, but asks them who they want to see. When they specify that it is Eileen Sherwood, his demeanor entirely changes and he calls "Eileen, dear, someone to see you". She walks right out and asks the sergeant to hang it up in her cell for her. He eagerly complies.

I don't think I can properly describe the intense funniness of this scene, with all of the officers of the station behaving as butlers toward Eileen (telling her who has 'come to call', giving her phone messages, telling unwanted callers that 'she is not here to you') and her unrealizing of how tightly she has them all wrapped around her finger.

The ending, of course, is happy (and predictable). Eileen's noteriety as the "Blonde Bombshell [who] Caused an International Incident" gives her the needed publicity for Speedy Valenti's to give her a chance in his club. Wreck and Helen discover that she is pregnant and so decide to get quickly married. Bob loses his job by trying to press his boss to accept Ruth's story about the Portugese sailors. A heart-to-heart between the sisters shows Eileen that Ruth is in love with Bob (and Eileen instantly and selflessly releases her own claim on him). A heart-to-heart between Eileen and Bob quickly reveals to Bob that the reason he lost his job is not purely a matter of principle: he is in love with Ruth. Ruth gets a job at Mr. Clark's newspaper (yes, the jerk came through when he submitted the article and his boss loved it).

The last few moments of the show have Eileen singing in the nightclub to an appreciative audience with Bob and Ruth kissing in the back row.

Birthday Present

Today, my dad got me a digital camera as a belated birthday present. I am having tons of fun trying out all of the setting and can't wait until tomorrow when I can take pictures in the light/outdoors. It is so cool!

Thanks Dad!!!

Medals and Ribbons

So, I am trying to research the Swift Boat Vets for Truth issue. I looked at their site, found it reasonably impressive (the photo particularly so), but it is obviously from one particular point of view. The only way to counter that appropriately is to strike a balance by finding looking at what people on the other side of the fence have to say.

Thus, to find out why John Kerry and the DNC threatened tv stations with libel if they ran the ad, I attempted to look at the official Kerry website. I searched for swift boat vets, and, scanning through the titles, I found one that looked interesting: "Why Kerry threw his ribbons". Not exactly the topic I was looking for, but one in which I was interested.

I was busy when the story first broke: midterms and papers and two shows during my last semester at college, so I never got really into it. So I really wanted to read Kerry's explanation.

Well, if that is his idea of an explanation, I am sorely disappointed.

"Do you still have the Silver Star," I asked Kerry. "Yeah," he said, "do you want to see it?" My answer was yes. He walked across his study to a secondary desk with clutter on top, mainly books, and opened the top right drawer. This is where he keeps all of his war medals.

"Nothing too fancy," he said as he pointed to the various boxes in which his medals were kept. "They don't bring back good memories." After glancing at them briefly we went back to our taped interview. [emphasis added]

He also points out that throwing ribbons rather than medals was not a deliberate attempt to be dupicitous, it was simply that he had his ribbons rather than his medals with him. They were equally symbolic.

Vietnam was a difficult time in our history. We had a draft, which I consider to be totally illegitimate. I understand and respect anyone who fled the country, tried to get out of service, took lesser service, accepted the draft but were resentful and hated their service or served with honor. I certainly am in no position to judge anyone's behavior at that time.

So, I find nothing wrong with Kerry's feelings of dissatisfaction (and I realize that I'm putting it mildly). I find nothing wrong with his throwing away his ribbons as a symbolic gesture. As long as he is willing to back up that position, I respect him.

So, what is my problem?

If it was such a painful time, why does he keep bringing it up? If his medals "don't bring back good memories", why does he mention them in the same sentence as "leadership, courage and sacrifice" on his website?

I find this behavior to be hypocritical. I find it disturbing that this article is presented as an explanation on his website. After all, it does a good job of explaining why he hated Vietnam, why he would choose not to speak of it and why he would try to be an activist against it.

It does not explain why he would feel that way and then change to someone who tries to present himself as a brave veteran, just in time for an election.

Kerry's Foreign Policy?

This morning on Morning Sedition, they had Jamie Rubin, described as Kerry's foreign policy advisor, on the air. They asked him six different ways how Kerry's foreign policy would be more effective than Bush's. Based on what I heard, it sounds like the entire foreign policy is based on: well, everybody hates Bush and will love Kerry.

Number one, I'm not so sure that's accurate. Number two, even if that's true, that all world leaders hate Bush but would love Kerry, I seriously doubt if any world leaders would change their nations' policy because they personally liked him. Number three, I find it bothersome that that was the extent of his plan and he thought that this was, well, deserving of being called a plan.

Hoping people like you isn't a plan; foreign policy isn't a popularity contest.

Interesting Contradictions

A few days ago, on Morning Sedition, the Marks were talking about Bruce Springsteen's "Vote for Change" tour. They mentioned that the Republicans were trying to counter that concert with one of their own, but that they couldn't figure who they could get to perform. The Marks had quite a laugh about the fact that no celebs were associated with a pro-Bush sentiment and so many were associated with the anti-Bush sentiment.

A few hours later, on the Randi Rhodes show, Randi was furious at the Republicans. According to her, they were saying stuff like 'no one cares what these singers think'. She was outraged because they have many many celebs on their side, including some who are speaking at their convention (of course, she made a point of denigrating those celebs, essentially saying they were brainless idiots).

So on my way to work, no celebrity could possibly be interested in being pro-Bush, and on the way home tons of them are.

Then Randi says it is an awful thing to denigrate the political opinions of anti-Bush celebs right before she tells us that the pro-Bush celebs don't have political opinions that are worth anything.

The things you learn from listening to talk radio on Air America...

Junto, "Wonderful Town" and Politics

So, for all of you from Junto, welcome. I'm glad that you are here. I'm sorry that I had to miss the meeting tonight, but I simply couldn't make it. Why not?

Because my mom took me out as a belated birthday present: we saw "Wonderful Town" .

What a fun show. The leads were phenomenal, the chorus was highly impressive, the music was great, the dancing (my feeling about dancing is usually 'take it or leave it') had my eyes completely glued to the stage, the sets and lighting (I'm a theatre girl, with a strong background in technical theatre) enhanced without distracting and it was just a fun, wonderful show.

Right now, I want to give a full, detailed, spoiler-filled review of "Wonderful Town". I want to do a bit of research and report about the Swift Boat Vets. I want to do a critique of Hillary Clinton's recent article in the WSJ. I want to look at the news and check out what has happened today, because I was at work all day and then I went straight to NYC to have dinner, see the show and I just got home.

But mostly, I want to go to sleep.

Guess you'll have to wait for more tomorrow.

Gay Marriage, Update

Y'know, the reason I was inspired to write that ungodly long post on gay marriage was because, yesterday morning, someone kept repeating that voting for the amendment was a purely political move.

No, it wasn't.

Look, of course it has a political aspect. Both sides were attempting to accomplish something politically (intestingly, the anti-amendment people spent more than 10 times the amount of the amount the pro-amendment people spent...and the amendment passed more than 2 to 1).

But most people voted because they believed in what they were voting.

Pretending that there were sinister motives doesn't help in figuring out how to change opinions. And, if, like me, you think this vote was a step in the wrong direction, then the most important thing is to change opinion in the future.

Gay Marriage

Missouri votes to ban gay marriage

In a world where 'Will & Grace' is fun prime-time fare and 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' is adding to our national vocabulary, this might seem to be surprising.

It isn't.

Americans are, by and large, not ready to accept a re-definition of marriage. 60%, including a fair number who otherwise support gay and lesbian rights, oppose gay marriage*.

Instead, activists are trying to force the issue. It should not be a surprise that, when you force an issue that the public at large is not ready for, you aren't going to get the result you want.

If it were still a matter that could be handled in state legislatures, by the voters, when social mores change sufficiently, they wouldn't feel the need to put it in their constituion. But, since it has become a judicial issue, over which the voters have no control and cannot hold judges accountable, they have to become proactive (the same reason why Congress tried to make an amendment).

But I understand where many of these people are coming from. I think they are wrong, but I understand them. And there is some overlap with horrible, disgusting homophobes like Fred Phelps.

But forcing this issue bands the people who just aren't ready together with homophobes. And that's a shame, because we can convince the people who aren't ready.

This was a setback, but it is one that activists should have anticipated. And that's too bad. But I don't expect it to be a permanent one.

Look, I fully expect to see the day when the fact that two men or two women got married will barely raise eyebrows. I mean, look at how far we've come in 10 years. In 20. In 30. It's a matter of time before society changes sufficiently that gay marriage is not considered to be materially different than straight marriage...

...and I have a number of wedding to which I expect to be invited. ;-)



*Marriage should be a social issue, it should be a religious issue, it should be a personal issue. Instead it is a government issue.

If it were up to me, I would keep government firmly out of marriage altogether. Civil unions, as a way to formalize certain legal rights (such as care of children, rights to make medical decisions for each other, the right to automatically be one another's heir) is the only thing that the government should offer and that should not necessarily be tied to religious ceremonies.

There is no reason why civil unions would or should be limited to heterosexual couples...and let religious organizations, groups of people and families argue about what constitutes a real marriage. That's the way it should be.

Feeling Useless

I need to search my bosses website, so I set up a simple search and let it go. After waiting for what felt like a long while, I took a look at the progress.

190 out of 773

This is going to be a long afternoon.

Jane Galt and Mark Twain

Jane Galt is offering an old-time serial in a totally new way.

She has started a blog called Unpopular Culture and she is single-handedly revitalizing the serial novel in this new medium. So, if you want, join her (and me!) in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.

The Statue of Liberty is re-opened

and it is about time.

There was a fair amount of criticism of this today. The critics were near-unanimous in their complaints: Manhattan is on an increased terror alert and we are re-opening a famous landmark?

A reasonable question (although often not asked in a reasonable manner).

But a relatively light study of Al Queda and the writings of bin Ladin answer this: they are not interested in our landmarks.

So what are they interested in? [Stop reading if you want to sleep well tonight.]

They want to hurt us. Badly. So badly that we are incapable of interfering in what they consider to be their business. So the only reason they would go after a major landmark that has no strategic (governmental or financial) value that would severely impact our ability to pay attention to international events...is if it is intended to be a distraction while they attempt to hit their real target.

Not sure which show...

...but the show that was on Air America at 10:50pm had an interesting call. What I heard was no doubt incomplete, but here is a paraphrasing:

Caller: You think they are unfit for democracy? That's racist!
Host: Whoa, whoa, wait a second. They have had tribal government for centuries and it works perfectly well for them*. So you want to be an arrogant white man who arrogantly imposes his idea of government on others. So watch who you are calling racist, buddy. [He also made some noise about imposing Christianity on others and said that that was what John Ashcroft and President Bush were doing].
Caller: What about Turkey?
Host: That's what I hate about you Republicans, you conservatives. You call about something else then ask about a red turkey herring.

I'm not in the mood for a complete critique of the conversation (tomorrow maybe), but I am in the mood to talk about my views on government.

I don't believe that a democracy is necessary for what I consider to be the most important aspects of government. I do think that it is probably better than other options, but there are issues with democracy and other systems have at least the hypothetical ability to do better.

So, if democracy isn't the end all and be all for me, what is?

Individual rights.

The right to be safe in your person, mind, and pocketbook. The purpose of government is to protect those rights.

As far as I'm concerned, a government must prove it is better at preserving those rights than anarchy would be...otherwise, it is illegitmate. Even if it is 'better than the alternative', any actions it takes that limits individual rights is still illegitimate.


*I'd like to remind everyone that, in these countries, women are often oppressed by this tribal system. I'm not going to claim that we definitively have the better system, over the centuries 'western civilization' has had its own share of oppression; but I am going to take issue with calling this a 'perfectly good' system of government.

Did she really say that?

Today, I turned on the Randi Rhodes show just in time to hear Randi mention that President Bush claimed that his energy policy didn't pass because of Democratic Filibusters. Randi responded to this idea by saying the following:

"You need 60 votes for a filibuster. And we [Democrats] only have 49 votes."

Is she serious?

You need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster: 41 Senators are sufficient to prevent anything from coming to a vote.

Arrrggghhh!!!!

I hate Microsoft FrontPage! I'm working on my bosses website, fixing broken links and making pages look more like part of a cohesive whole, and it is taking FOREVER to save each page.

Morning Sedition on Security Issues

Today, on Morning Sedition, a man involved in the security industry called in to discuss some of the recent warnings in Manhattan. First off, I would like to commend the Marks at Morning Sedition for having an intelligent, interesting conversation with someone they disagreed with, rather than a boring shouting match.

Secondly, I'm going to disagree with them on several points.

• After the guy hung up, the Marks made fun of him for being a racist. Now, this seemed to be based entirely on the fact that he called potential terrorist an 'Ali Baba'. While it isn't a term that I would use, I wouldn't call it inherrently offensive, especially in the context in which it was used. (Note: he didn't call all Arabs terrorists, he just mentioned that Arab terrorists were the ones we had to watch out for.) Now, Mark&Mark, I realize you guys may be a bit confused. But this isn't the West Wing where the terrorists are carefully designated as Southern Gun-Toting White Supremacists inspired to act by an interracial relationship: this is real life where the PC gurus didn't get to decide what our attackers look like.

• The caller kept talking about what private companies could (and should!) do. The Marks kept trying to ask him what the government should be doing (presumably so they could denounce it for not doing it). But the some of the most important things are the smallest and most local: if your building is hit, you need a way out. The city government can't possibly know the best way out of your building; that's something you (and your company) need to work on.

• As for "evacuating the island" (which the Marks mentioned several times), the reason that the city hasn't publicized plans is because it is impossible. Terrorists might hit the bridges and/or tunnels so any plan using bridges/tunnels is subject to change, furthermore if they knew which bridges and tunnels were in an evacuation plan, those would be moved to the top of the hit list. In the case of the necessity of a city-wide evacuation, expect to walk over any available bridges or tunnels.

• The Marks said that they thought Bush announced the attacks, not because he thought they would happen but for one of 2 reasons:
  1. He knows that they won't happen, but he wants to scare people (so they are prepared for the extra security involved in the RNC's convention) or
  2. He wants to cover himself in case there are attacks
  No, really, that's what they said. Bush warned us about the possibility of attacks on specific targets in NYC (and Newark, for good measure) because he doesn't think they will happen but he is worried that they might. Huh?

• The Marks (and yesterday, Randi Rhodes as well) kept repeating that Bush wanted to scare people. If so, he's doing a terrible job. Paying attention to the news and talking to people I know who live or work in Manhattan (although, admitedly not Newark), I have heard about exactly one person (besides these three radio hosts) who appeared concerned: a radio spot mentioned that a woman hesitated nervously for 30 seconds before crossing the street and entering her place of work past an armed guard; most reports were more along the lines of "it's just another day" and "it's good that there's more protection, but no one in my office is concerned".

We Can Control Natural Phenomena

Al Queda to Italy:

"we will trigger an earthquake in your country"

Now, I realize that it may very well be a translation problem...but the idea of terrorists threatening to move the Earth's tectonic plates is highly amusing to me.

Excerpts from Kerry's Speech, Part IV

This is part one in my commentary on things in John Kerry's speech that liberals are proud of, i.e. clips they have played on Air America.
Go to Part III

"What does it mean for our economy and our national security when we only have three percent of the world's oil reserves, yet we rely on foreign countries for fifty-three percent of what we consume?"

For the record, I had thought the percentage of oil we purchased from foreign countries was higher: according to Kerry, we produce about 3% and use about 6% of the world's oil. Given that we produce a great deal of the world's products, those numbers don't sound bad at all to me.

But let's pay attention to what Kerry is trying to say. 53% of what we consume comes from other countries: primarily Venezuala and Canada. Neither of those countries has been particularly problematic to our national security.

And what is Kerry suggesting we do, anyway? Become an isolationist country?

We could do that. I mean, America is blessed with some of the richest farmland in the world. Every year we pay farmers not to grow and we still export a huge amount of agricultural products. Beyond agriculture, we have an embarressment of other natural resources. So, on a purely survival basis, we could become an isolationist ountry.

Of course, our standard of living would go way down. Why? Because we would miss out on Ricardo's law of comparative advantage, that is, we would miss out on the efficiencies that the economies of other countries have. But we could do it. Heck, we've done it before.

Not all countries could though. A fair number countries are completely dependent on international trade, including trade with the U.S. But, if we were willing to say 'to hell with the rest of the world', we could stop.

Doesn't much sound like the same guy who said that we shouldn't go into Iraq because we didn't have enough European allies though...


^{*So, wait, wait, wait...if we aren't using much Middle Eastern Oil, who is?
Europe.}

Constitutional Right to Free Speech

Man refuses to change or turn offensive shirt inside out; not allowed on plane

[N]obody on their earlier flight objected to the shirt and claimed the airline violated their constitutional right to free speech.

The constitutional right to free speech does not consist of using speech that others find offensive while on their property and then demanding that they provide you with a service.

CAMERA Alert

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) reports that the NPR, AP, Cox News Service and the LA Times all have used misleading language when reporting that the terrorist group Hamas has been blamed for attacks; in acutality, the group has taken responsibility for those attacks.

Excerpts from Kerry's Speech, Part III

This is part two in my commentary on things in John Kerry's speech that liberals are proud of, i.e. clips they have played on Air America. Go to Part II
Go to Part IV

"Third, close the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas. Instead, we will reward companies that create and keep good paying jobs where they belong in the good old U.S.A."

The 'loopholes' that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas consist entirely of the fact that foreign taxes are less than U.S. ones. Unless John Kerry is intending to either provide corporate welfare to U.S. companies or else convince other countries to change their tax laws to benefit us rather than them, this is an entirely ridiculous thing to say.

The most ridiculous aspect of his plan is found on his website*: instead of helping to lower U.S. taxes to help make the U.S. more competitive, he plans to tax even subsidiaries of American companies working abroad at our higher rates.

There is little doubt that his plan will help to encourage foreign companies to beat out U.S. ones at home and abroud.

^{*Also from the John Kerry website: "John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing the most sweeping simplification of international taxes in over forty years." My father, a CPA specializing in taxation, says that this is a ludicrous statement, that this will be a huge complication instead. He promises to update me with more specific details as they become available.}

Good for Bloomberg

Bloomberg has announced that the city will not be helping the Yankees pay for a new stadium. Bravo Mr. Mayor.

The government has isn't good at figuring out which companies make good investments. Even if they were, it would be far outside the list of 'things you need government to do' that is the basis of libertarian philosophy. As for the frequent claim that this is good for other businesses...if it is true (a questionable proposition), they should be the first ones asking George Steinbrenner if they can invest in his new stadium.

Excerpts from Kerry's Speech, Part II

This is part two in my commentary on things in John Kerry's speech that liberals are proud of, i.e. clips they have played on Air America. Go to Part I Go to Part III

We believe in the family value expressed in one of the oldest Commandments: "Honour thy father and thy mother." As President, I will not privatize Social Security.

To me, honoring my parents is not something I tend to equate with leaving them at the mercy of the whims of politicians and bueracrats. I would have thought that the better way to honor them would be to encourage them to take steps to save for their own retirement and then, when they can no longer take care of themselves, to help them myself, not just expect someone else to do it.

But maybe that's just me.

Excerpts from Kerry's Speech, Part I

This is part one in my commentary on things in John Kerry's speech that liberals are proud of, i.e. clips they have played on Air America. Go to Part II

"I will not privatize Social Security. I will not cut benefits."

...I will keep my head buried firmly in the sand.

America has an aging population. People are living longer and having fewer children. The fastest growing age cohort is 85-90 year olds.

As someone who has is fortunate enough to have all 4 of my grandparents, 1 step-grandmother and knew one of my great-grandmothers, I personally benefit: I have been fortunate enough to have received wisdom, advice and love from each of these special people. But as a young member of a society facing the very real possibility of supporting multiple generations with my tax money, John Kerry's* refusal to recognize the problem is a hugely scary thing.

I strongly recommend a speech by William W. Beach called "Population Problems: The Politics of Aging and Retirement in the 21st Century". The second link is a direct link to the audio, if you have any problems, try going to this page and scrolling down.

Mr. Beach discusses the problems that the U.S. and Europe are currently facing with our public (as opposed to private) pension programs. The U.S. is actually relatively okay...our program will last 50 years as opposed to some of Europe's (Italy's, for example) which have a much shorter time frame.

However, Mr. Beach, and the others at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis do see a way out. But we would have to start making changes now. We have to start encouraging people to save for their own retirement to change the system into a self-funded retirement program.

I don't want a president who thinks that we don't need to fix this problem. I don't want one who is advocating not fixing it. I don't want a president who is proud of advocating doing nothing.


^{*I wonder how his younger supporters feel: after all, he is promising to help those over 55 at the direct expense of those under 30.}