Even though I’m not exactly sure who this Snooki is, it is my solemn duty to tell you that her gig to drop out of the New Year’s Eve ball in NYC (or something) is now off and you will have to travel to somewhere in New Jersey if you wish to make Snook part of your New Year’s festivities. What a sad.
Whatever you are doing to ring in the New Year have fun and, most important be safe y’all!
Oh, and feel free to share your plans with the rest of us if you want. Mr.marindenver and I will be curled up on the couch in front of the fire with a bottle of Prosecco. Too freaking cold here to go anywhere!
One of my least-loved parental duties is taking my kid in for shots. Like most kids, she hates it. And as someone who is absurdly terrified of needles even as an adult, I can’t find it in my heart to tell her to stop blubbering because it won’t hurt that much. It’s a filthy lie.
Years ago, I had to have a tetanus shot after accidentally sticking my hand in a metal ceiling fan. (I was stretching. And I’m tall for a chick.) I was in a curtained-off bay in the ER, blubbering with terror at the impending shot, and I overheard the doctor, who had not yet seen me, ask a nurse where my mother was. He was surprised when the nurse told him I was 20-something, so my mommy wasn’t with me!
Anyway, on a recent trip to get a dreaded immunization, I noticed this illustration for an immunization poster. Oh, they tried to make the syringe look friendly, with its little yellow boots, cocked brow, wink and grin. But it’s still got a goddamn stabby thing sticking out of its head!
I don’t find it convincing, and it’s not fooling any kids either.
Is our children learning? Depends on the publisher of their school books [via WaPo]:
In the version of history being taught in some Virginia classrooms, New Orleans began the 1800s as a bustling U.S. harbor (instead of as a Spanish colonial one). The Confederacy included 12 states (instead of 11). And the United States entered World War I in 1916 (instead of in 1917).
These are among the dozens of errors historians have found since Virginia officials ordered a review of textbooks by Five Ponds Press, the publisher responsible for a controversial claim that African American soldiers fought for the South in large numbers during the Civil War.
The review began after The Washington Post reported in October that “Our Virginia” included a sentence saying that thousands of black soldiers fought for the South. The claim is one often made by Confederate heritage groups but rejected by most mainstream historians. The book’s author, Joy Masoff, said at the time that she found references to it during research on the Internet. Five Ponds Press later apologized.
Palin’s Folly, i.e., failed senate candidate Joe Miller, ends 2010 and punctuates his humiliating slide into irrelevance with a press conference tomorrow, at which he’s supposed to announce whether or not he’ll continue his quixotic bid to invalidate the reelection of the now-certified winner of the senate seat, Lisa Murkowski.
Or maybe he’ll just announce his availability as a Gillette razors or Axe body spray spokesman. [sad trombone]
This week, I’ve seen two movies in their opening runs (well, at least in this backwater), which is about as rare as a full lunar eclipse on winter solstice. The first was True Grit, the Coen Brothers’ darker remake of the 1969 John Wayne classic. I can add nothing to Roy Edroso’s review here, which is spot on [SPOILERS AT LINK!].
Okay, I can add one thing: a link to Doughy Pantload’s thoughts on the same movie. It illustrates the vast chasm between the two reviewers’ states of evolution as effectively as the ape and space scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey. (SPOILER: Pantload is the ape!)
So, onto the second film: The King’s Speech. Despite being an American and thoroughly devoted to the principles of egalitarianism, I’m sheepishly fascinated by the British royals. Well, up to the present Queen, anyway—the younger ones are so thoroughly celebritized that I don’t find them very interesting.
The modern leap into celebrity is at the core of the film, when King George VI, who was afflicted by a severe stammer, must overcome it as best he can to present himself well in the celebrity vehicle of the day: live radio.
It’s wonderfully acted: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter—what’s not to like? Also, it closes with what is, in my opinion, the most sublime piece of music ever produced by a human being: the first three and a half minutes or so of the second movement of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony:
I highly recommend both movies, which are the best I’ve seen all year. (And possibly the only films I’ve seen all year. I can’t remember. New Year’s resolution: See more movies in 2011!)
But all I can say in my defense is that I think I’m right about the inevitability of gay marriage or at least very strong civil unions (which would ultimately lead to gay marriage, anyway). [Bzzzt! The correct answer is: All I can say in my defense is I’ll shut up and never seek to communicate with another human being for the rest of my miserable life - ed.]
I don’t take this position because I’m dodging, or caving, or playing games of some kind [Butcha aaare, ya aaare in the chair, Blanche! - ed]. I just happen to think it’s true (barring some scientific developments down the road).
Yup. According to the Loathesome Doughfucker, unspecified “scientific developments” could stop the inevitable spread of equal marriage rights in this country.
Those of us who know a teeny bit about events both past and current clutch the trusty blunderbuss close we hear this kind of talk. It makes us nervous.
However, those of us who know jackshit about anything are free to blithely claim that gays were the best friends a Nazi ever had ergo liberals are fascists but maybe a scientific development or two will set things right.
[December 28, 2010] We’ve polled Palin’s favorability in ten states over the last couple months. In Alaska just 33% of voters have a favorable opinion of her to 58% with a negative one. The only place where fewer voters see her positively than her own home state is dark blue Massachusetts.
Ungrateful bastards! She’s been promoting the state relentlessly on Discovery Channel! But Co-Cultist-in-Chief Ian Lazaran over at Conservatives4Palin can explain:
In any event, it’s completely hypocritical for Palin’s opponents to cite Governor Palin’s ratings in one of the least religious states in the country as evidence of anything significant…
Oh, I get it: Alaskans don’t even love JESUS! Of course they don’t appreciate His Holy Vessel in America either.
While Lisa Murkowski’s certification as the winner is now automatic and Judge Beistline’s ruling forecloses all but the most Taitzian stratagems for appeal, Miller remains optimistic:
“I am disappointed with the federal court’s ruling today. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause presented the most significant constitutional issue. Specifically, should the courts be required to follow the legislature’s standard for the selection of U.S. Senators or create their own? My legal team believes that the clear language of the Election Clause as well as precedent support our claims. Thus, we are evaluating the ruling and determining what our next step should be.”
According to legal scholars, Miller’s best hopes for overturning the election results include challenging Murkowski to a Disney-style “wacky car” road race from Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego or traveling to the 25th Century to submit his case for retroactive review by a Federation of Planets Tribunal.
In my previous column, I offered an answer to the question: What do men want? I made the case that what men most want from the woman they love is to be admired.
If my answer is correct, and if we presume that the natures of men and women are complementary (a presumption many men and women understandably doubt given how often men and women do not get along), what women most want must be related to that which men most want.
I believe it is. What a woman most wants is to be loved by a man she admires.
You know, what Prager says is undoubtedly true of some women. But he makes this sweeping generalization about literally billions of human beings. And he doesn’t add even a token qualifier to acknowledge that perhaps not every man or woman on the planet is as interchangeable within their cohort as a standard light bulb.
Contra Prager, I offer the following extensive—but by no means exhaustive! – list of things SOME women may want more than “to be loved by a man she admires:”
—World peace —To be loved by a woman she admires —A decent education for her kids —An endless supply of fried chicken —A house by the sea —To write a great novel —Some fava beans and a nice Chianti (sss-sss-sss-sss-sss!) —World travel —A horse farm —An iPad —A fulfilling career —A meal for a starving child —A cure for cancer
This could go on, but you get the point. Prager stuffs his turkey of a column with the usual wingnut giblets—man-hating feminists! PC police! Blah-blah-blah. That standard fare isn’t much interesting, but the arrogance and sweep of Prager’s pronouncement is somewhat remarkable—even dullards like Jonah Goldberg usually have the good sense to toss in the obligatory “most” or “generally.”
It’s also fascinating that Prager frames the contrast as “what men want most from the woman they love” and “what women want”—period.
Mr. Cracker has many admirable traits: One is that he has never started a sentence with, “What women most want is…” Not even once.
I don’t find Prager interesting enough to Google. But it would not surprise me a bit to learn that there have been several Mrs. Pragers…