Ok. So the new season of Mad Men starts this Sunday. I love this show. I don't typically enjoy dramas but I do love this show.
So, here I was yesterday evening, sitting in a sports bar/grill, trying to explain this show over dinner. I found myself trying to describe the plot and enumerate the reasons why I so irrationally love this show.
It IS more than the wardrobe and hairstyle choices, really - men in suits and fedoras, women in shirt-waists and heels, slick and sassy. Meanwhile, back at the bar/grill, all around me were men in Ravens ball caps, untucked golf shirts and cargo shorts, while women were sporting either Ravens jerseys or summer-time casual tee-shirts and flip flops (opening exhibition game Ravens/Redskins - Ravens kicked a@#). Not even a dusky, hazy romance of cigarette smoke to blur the edges of the establishment (and no, I'm not advocating smoking - asthma and smoke, not good - but you have to admit, it does set a certain mood and I do kinda' miss it in some ways). Fedora - ball cap. Heels - flip flops. You do the math on this one.
Anyway, my fondness for this show comes down to this. It is a sassy, historically-based prime-time soap opera. I don't mean soap opera in a bad way. I mean soap opera in the finest Dallas and Falconcrest way but even better because it contains an element of awareness and tribute to historical impact of events during that time (women's roles, men's roles, sexual preference, the Civil Rights movement, Bay of Pigs) and all the wonderfully awful reactions to these kinds of issues. And then, right along side these, there's smoking and drinking and golf and divorce and cheating and...well...drama in all it's HD techni-color glory, and then some.
It's a sophisticated combination of Shakespeare and the WWE. I mean that in the best possible way. You can't get much better than that.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Day 4
Remember? Back at the end of June? When I started out to write 30,000 words over the course of a month? Right. Well, I'm back to it. So this is actually Day 4. Nice.
Here we go!
Here we go!
Thursday, August 06, 2009
the350project.net - worth a look
I'm quoting here from Vogue Knitting but don't let that stop you from reading about an interesting economic initiative:
"The premise of the 3/50 Project is simple: Pick three local stores you couldn't stand to see disappear and spend $50 every month at those stores (that's $50 altogether, not at each individual outlet). According to the numbers crunched by 3/50 Project founder Cinda Baxter, a retail specialist concerned about the economy's impact on indie stores nationwide. 'If even half the employed population spent a mere $50 per month in locally owned retail stores, those purchases would generate more than $42.6 billion in revenue." Want more math? For every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 remains in a community's economy, versus $43 spent at national chains and $0 spent on online purchases."
Now, I'm not interested in fact-checking here but it does sound rather like an interesting idea. Primarily because I like local establishments.
"The premise of the 3/50 Project is simple: Pick three local stores you couldn't stand to see disappear and spend $50 every month at those stores (that's $50 altogether, not at each individual outlet). According to the numbers crunched by 3/50 Project founder Cinda Baxter, a retail specialist concerned about the economy's impact on indie stores nationwide. 'If even half the employed population spent a mere $50 per month in locally owned retail stores, those purchases would generate more than $42.6 billion in revenue." Want more math? For every $100 spent in locally owned independent stores, $68 remains in a community's economy, versus $43 spent at national chains and $0 spent on online purchases."
Now, I'm not interested in fact-checking here but it does sound rather like an interesting idea. Primarily because I like local establishments.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Goals Revisited - Since It's Almost August.
Goal 1. I was going to edit all my files. Well. Nope. Hadn't happened. Still sitting in large bins cluttering up the study. In fact, I have to climb over them in order to close the blinds. You'd think that would be incentive to change. And it was for the first week. Now I'm just used to climbing over them...I'm counting that as cardio. Maybe I'll do that tomorrow.
Goal 2. Knitting. Well I was going to finish my knitting projects. Right. I was on a roll here; I really was. I finished the shawl I've been working on (on and off) for about oh - six years. Right, I know, you don't need to say anything about it. But I've been busy. Anyway - I'd finished it. I'd done the edging and weaved in all the ends. It was sassy, if a wee bit short. But, it was DONE. And then, in a fit of excitement to begin the NEXT project, I went through my yarn bin. Right. You've already guessed it, I'm sure. I FOUND THE LAST SKEIN. Right. One more skein. Remember I mentioned the shawl felt a wee bit short? Well, I didn't spend five-six years for 'a wee bit short'. So, I unraveled the edging and began with the last darn skein. I'm almost done. Seriously. I am.
Goal 3. 30,000 words. Ah. Here's the rub. Dashed on the rocky shoals of unemployment and the necessity for resume writing? It's a GREAT excuse. And I have been distracted - CONSIDERABLY so. But, in reality, I could manage one hour a day. I was all set for day 4. Perhaps I'll do that as a break from working through files tomorrow.
Sounds like a plan!
Goal 2. Knitting. Well I was going to finish my knitting projects. Right. I was on a roll here; I really was. I finished the shawl I've been working on (on and off) for about oh - six years. Right, I know, you don't need to say anything about it. But I've been busy. Anyway - I'd finished it. I'd done the edging and weaved in all the ends. It was sassy, if a wee bit short. But, it was DONE. And then, in a fit of excitement to begin the NEXT project, I went through my yarn bin. Right. You've already guessed it, I'm sure. I FOUND THE LAST SKEIN. Right. One more skein. Remember I mentioned the shawl felt a wee bit short? Well, I didn't spend five-six years for 'a wee bit short'. So, I unraveled the edging and began with the last darn skein. I'm almost done. Seriously. I am.
Goal 3. 30,000 words. Ah. Here's the rub. Dashed on the rocky shoals of unemployment and the necessity for resume writing? It's a GREAT excuse. And I have been distracted - CONSIDERABLY so. But, in reality, I could manage one hour a day. I was all set for day 4. Perhaps I'll do that as a break from working through files tomorrow.
Sounds like a plan!
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Pot-bellied Pigs
Pig butt. Sometimes you just don't quite realize all the components in a photo when you're taking it quickly.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The biggest problem with linking merit pay to test scores..
In education, lately, there has been an accelerated call by the current administration to link student performance as evidenced by student test scores to teacher pay and teacher success. The motivation behind this is not a bad thing but there is an inherent flaw to the idea - standardized tests are just that, standards, norms, generalizations. These tests do not address the intricate changes that can be made in the classroom across a year's time, nor do they address the student's starting point as it relates to achievement throughout the year and the student's gains by the end of the year as relative to that starting point. Teachers get SO worked up and SO upset with this proposal (and I'm talking GOOD teachers, competent teachers - not lazy ones who aren't really teaching anyway) because the proposals are based on these standards - these general ideas.
A scenario:
A dentist fixes teeth - cavities, abscesses, chips, you name it.
The dentist works with whomever comes into his office. If he works with a more upscale clientele, the dentist (generally) will see better quality teeth, better quality home care, and teeth that have had more dental care overall.
If the dentist works in a clinic or in a less affluent area, the dentist will (again generally), see teeth that have had less care over the years (the teeth can't afford it), fewer visits to a dentist overall (again, that cost), and less overall upkeep - all of which means that the teeth will need more, and more serious, intervention, when they present. In other words, the problems are more serious, more costly, and require a more lengthy fix, with more visits to resolve. And, due to this added cost, it's more likely that the resolution won't happen because the person doesn't have the money to fix them - the person stops coming altogether.
The dentist is judged on the quality of the work, once that work is completed. If that work is completed. And the dentist may or may not receive payment, depending on circumstances and surroundings.
Now, let's apply this scenario to education. Public education. Students come to a teacher from all walks of life. They have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Like their teeth, they come in all grades of health and with all levels of well-being. Whereas a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist takes on one client an hour or sees one patient per fifteen minutes, a teacher works with 15-35 an hour.
Now, the teacher accepts the contract, accepts the pay, and accepts the conditions, including the number of students. The teacher is aware, fully aware, that students will present all levels and manners of challenges. It's just what happens. It's what education is. The teacher knows that some students will stick it out - and that some will try to quit, just like the dentist's patients. (And, for those who would, at this point, say "Ah ha! See. Teachers shouldn't be paid if they can't keep students," - I won't disagree but I will point out, again, the ratio of student/teacher to patient/dentist. If you want to pay a teacher per student per hour like the dentist is paid per patient per visit, you'll be paying out WAY more to each teacher than any system can afford, merit pay or not - and THAT most teachers would accept but most lawmakers would not.)
Like the dentist's choice of office location, the teacher's school location DOES affect the type and the way in which those challenges manifest in the classroom.
Like the dentist's success rate, the teacher is expected to show a success rate, improvement in both the students' body of knowledge and the students' test scores.
Like the dentist's display of skill, the teacher's quality of work is key in showing that improvement.
But, unlike the dentist, the teacher is expected to teach both those willing and those unwilling. By law, students, unlike patients, are required to be there. They are required to attend - which doesn't mean they are required to learn. It is the teacher's job to encourage that - but no one can force it. That in itself is a factor - and yes, a good teacher can do a great deal to entice learning and a bad teacher can destroy it - but it is only one factor of many and we are discussing the competent teacher here (I have no quibble with getting rid of bad teachers - but merit pay should be about reward and getting rid of bad teachers should be the responsibility of a competent principal - not about pricing them out).
Now, if you have bad teeth, the dentist can show improvement, can fix some of the issues. If a student isn't on grade-level, the teacher CAN show improvement, can help the student to improve.
But here's the real rub with merit pay as linked to student scores.
A student appears in the classroom, let's say a 9th grade classroom, and s/he is reading on a 4th grade level. The student can surely show gains across the course of a year. But will they reach a 10th grade reading level by the end of 9th grade year? With 30 other students in the class? When the teacher has one hour a day with that class and maybe a coach-class after school? Maybe.
But what if the teacher is able to help that student reach a 6th grade level? That is a FANTASTIC improvement. They've clearly demonstrated improvement...but not that improvement that would earn them merit pay as demonstrated by test scores because current testing isn't set up to acknowledge these kinds of gains. The teacher has done his or her job, and done it well, but...according to testing, the student still falls below grade-level. The student still isn't at, now, a 10th grade reading level - whether or not he or she is promoted to the 10th grade.
The concept of merit pay is not inherently a bad one.
The problem is that standardized testing doesn't reflect the varied situations that students present BECAUSE the tests are standardized. (There is absolutely value in standardized testing - this isn't an argument against it - just the current proposals to link it to merit pay when standardized tests don't reflect a range of skills and levels.)
The problem is student test scores are affected by SO many other factors that come into play when educating students, factors that the teacher cannot control - social, cultural, economic, environmental. And these things all affect how a student performs in the classroom. Not simply that one hour a day. And none of those things are scored and ranked as differentials when considering teacher success.
Most teachers are there because they love what they do. They certainly aren't in it for the money. Most teachers are, themselves, lifelong learners with a passion for their subject matter.
As for the issue of bad teachers and merit pay, let us not confuse the argument for merit pay with the argument against bad teachers. Certainly, there are bad teachers - or, at the very least, teachers who didn't synch with students personally as they grew up. I'm sure we can all easily recall both the best and the worst we've had, just as the business world includes all sorts of people at all kinds of levels. The issue of a bad or incompetent teacher should be addressed at the school level and that teacher should be let go - that is NOT the role of merit pay, or should not be anyway.
Simply put, evaluating student success is so much more complex than test scores.
Before getting everyone riled up by suggesting just a general "hey let's link these up even though we don't really know that it works", the administration and the Department of Education could present a model or two - based on ALL the factors that impact education - for how merit pay could work. Propose a series of graduated evaluations to be done at the school level, and implemented at the state level, which demonstrate the improvements made - and link those to 'have-you earned-your-pay' initiatives. Or, "The Department of Education should respect the requirements of federalism and look to states to offer their best ideas rather than mandating policies that the current administration likes,” Dr. Ravitch said in comments filed with the department."
And if merit pay as is currently proposed won't fly, the powers that be could always consider a proposal to pay teachers per student. That would be cool. Most tutors make $25-75 an hour, per student. Tally that one up.
A scenario:
A dentist fixes teeth - cavities, abscesses, chips, you name it.
The dentist works with whomever comes into his office. If he works with a more upscale clientele, the dentist (generally) will see better quality teeth, better quality home care, and teeth that have had more dental care overall.
If the dentist works in a clinic or in a less affluent area, the dentist will (again generally), see teeth that have had less care over the years (the teeth can't afford it), fewer visits to a dentist overall (again, that cost), and less overall upkeep - all of which means that the teeth will need more, and more serious, intervention, when they present. In other words, the problems are more serious, more costly, and require a more lengthy fix, with more visits to resolve. And, due to this added cost, it's more likely that the resolution won't happen because the person doesn't have the money to fix them - the person stops coming altogether.
The dentist is judged on the quality of the work, once that work is completed. If that work is completed. And the dentist may or may not receive payment, depending on circumstances and surroundings.
Now, let's apply this scenario to education. Public education. Students come to a teacher from all walks of life. They have diverse backgrounds and experiences. Like their teeth, they come in all grades of health and with all levels of well-being. Whereas a lawyer or a doctor or a dentist takes on one client an hour or sees one patient per fifteen minutes, a teacher works with 15-35 an hour.
Now, the teacher accepts the contract, accepts the pay, and accepts the conditions, including the number of students. The teacher is aware, fully aware, that students will present all levels and manners of challenges. It's just what happens. It's what education is. The teacher knows that some students will stick it out - and that some will try to quit, just like the dentist's patients. (And, for those who would, at this point, say "Ah ha! See. Teachers shouldn't be paid if they can't keep students," - I won't disagree but I will point out, again, the ratio of student/teacher to patient/dentist. If you want to pay a teacher per student per hour like the dentist is paid per patient per visit, you'll be paying out WAY more to each teacher than any system can afford, merit pay or not - and THAT most teachers would accept but most lawmakers would not.)
Like the dentist's choice of office location, the teacher's school location DOES affect the type and the way in which those challenges manifest in the classroom.
Like the dentist's success rate, the teacher is expected to show a success rate, improvement in both the students' body of knowledge and the students' test scores.
Like the dentist's display of skill, the teacher's quality of work is key in showing that improvement.
But, unlike the dentist, the teacher is expected to teach both those willing and those unwilling. By law, students, unlike patients, are required to be there. They are required to attend - which doesn't mean they are required to learn. It is the teacher's job to encourage that - but no one can force it. That in itself is a factor - and yes, a good teacher can do a great deal to entice learning and a bad teacher can destroy it - but it is only one factor of many and we are discussing the competent teacher here (I have no quibble with getting rid of bad teachers - but merit pay should be about reward and getting rid of bad teachers should be the responsibility of a competent principal - not about pricing them out).
Now, if you have bad teeth, the dentist can show improvement, can fix some of the issues. If a student isn't on grade-level, the teacher CAN show improvement, can help the student to improve.
But here's the real rub with merit pay as linked to student scores.
A student appears in the classroom, let's say a 9th grade classroom, and s/he is reading on a 4th grade level. The student can surely show gains across the course of a year. But will they reach a 10th grade reading level by the end of 9th grade year? With 30 other students in the class? When the teacher has one hour a day with that class and maybe a coach-class after school? Maybe.
But what if the teacher is able to help that student reach a 6th grade level? That is a FANTASTIC improvement. They've clearly demonstrated improvement...but not that improvement that would earn them merit pay as demonstrated by test scores because current testing isn't set up to acknowledge these kinds of gains. The teacher has done his or her job, and done it well, but...according to testing, the student still falls below grade-level. The student still isn't at, now, a 10th grade reading level - whether or not he or she is promoted to the 10th grade.
The concept of merit pay is not inherently a bad one.
The problem is that standardized testing doesn't reflect the varied situations that students present BECAUSE the tests are standardized. (There is absolutely value in standardized testing - this isn't an argument against it - just the current proposals to link it to merit pay when standardized tests don't reflect a range of skills and levels.)
The problem is student test scores are affected by SO many other factors that come into play when educating students, factors that the teacher cannot control - social, cultural, economic, environmental. And these things all affect how a student performs in the classroom. Not simply that one hour a day. And none of those things are scored and ranked as differentials when considering teacher success.
Most teachers are there because they love what they do. They certainly aren't in it for the money. Most teachers are, themselves, lifelong learners with a passion for their subject matter.
As for the issue of bad teachers and merit pay, let us not confuse the argument for merit pay with the argument against bad teachers. Certainly, there are bad teachers - or, at the very least, teachers who didn't synch with students personally as they grew up. I'm sure we can all easily recall both the best and the worst we've had, just as the business world includes all sorts of people at all kinds of levels. The issue of a bad or incompetent teacher should be addressed at the school level and that teacher should be let go - that is NOT the role of merit pay, or should not be anyway.
Simply put, evaluating student success is so much more complex than test scores.
Before getting everyone riled up by suggesting just a general "hey let's link these up even though we don't really know that it works", the administration and the Department of Education could present a model or two - based on ALL the factors that impact education - for how merit pay could work. Propose a series of graduated evaluations to be done at the school level, and implemented at the state level, which demonstrate the improvements made - and link those to 'have-you earned-your-pay' initiatives. Or, "The Department of Education should respect the requirements of federalism and look to states to offer their best ideas rather than mandating policies that the current administration likes,” Dr. Ravitch said in comments filed with the department."
And if merit pay as is currently proposed won't fly, the powers that be could always consider a proposal to pay teachers per student. That would be cool. Most tutors make $25-75 an hour, per student. Tally that one up.
I still can't believe it...
I cannot believe that the government will OWN 61% of the 'new' GM. I am appalled that it has come to this. I am even more appalled that the Obama administration even had to address the issue about whether or not he'd be involved in the day-to-day running of the company. WHAT? The leader of the US, involved in running the car company he just bought?
Here's the quote: GM "is expected to receive $50 billion in taxpayer funds. In exchange for those funds, the government will own about 61 percent of the 'new GM.' The Obama administration has said it does not plan to interfere with the day-to-day running of the company, though government has been involved in the selection of the new company's 13-member board of directors and change of control transactions."
There are SO many things wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to begin. But , at root, my complaint stems from the fact that the government should not OWN a car company. Nor should the government have PURCHASED the company using taxpayer money.
At this point, I want to know when I get my dividends as a shareholder. Hmmmm????
Here's the quote: GM "is expected to receive $50 billion in taxpayer funds. In exchange for those funds, the government will own about 61 percent of the 'new GM.' The Obama administration has said it does not plan to interfere with the day-to-day running of the company, though government has been involved in the selection of the new company's 13-member board of directors and change of control transactions."
There are SO many things wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to begin. But , at root, my complaint stems from the fact that the government should not OWN a car company. Nor should the government have PURCHASED the company using taxpayer money.
At this point, I want to know when I get my dividends as a shareholder. Hmmmm????
Thursday, July 02, 2009
This so makes me think about moving back South, back home...
I'm reading Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and I came across a line that makes me want to move back south. "Savannah, [Johnny Mercer] said, had been 'a sweet, indolent background for a boy to grow up in.' ...The back porch of his house looked out on a tidal creek that meandered through a broad expanse of marshland....These, then, were the images in my mental gazetteer of Savannah: rum-drinking pirates, strong-willed women, courtly manners, eccentric behavior, gentle words, and lovely music. That and the beauty of the name itself: Savannah."
Just makes you want to go sit on a porch somewhere, doesn't it? It does me.
Just makes you want to go sit on a porch somewhere, doesn't it? It does me.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Why I don't buy hard-back books anymore.
Let me start by saying that I love hard-back books. I love the way they look on the bookshelf. I love the heft of them in my hand, the timelessness, the I'll-be-here-when-you-want-to-read-me-again-ness of them. I enjoy that it's darn difficult to break the spine on a hard-back book whose pages have been stitched together - bound solidly, that the pages are smooth and bright and that the print is clear and vibrant and that the font is usually a bit more unique and well-spaced.
Now, all of that said, I do not buy them anymore (or at least very rarely). Because? It's not because of the cost. Well, not entirely. Previously, I had counted the cost as an investment in quality materials that would last.
But, over the last 5-10 years (maybe longer but this is when I started noticing), the hard-back book has changed. The bindings are glued together (one of my harry potters fell apart the first week I owned it, I mean the book split and separated and fell out of the binding - and I TAKE CARE OF my books!) and the paper is not much better quality than is currently found in a standard paper-back.
In order to mass-produce paperbacks, the paper produced is cheap and has a relatively high acid content. That means that, in a few years, the pages will begin to yellow and, after several more years, they will crack and break. I accept that. I understand that. I'm willing to pay $5-6 dollars for that.
BUT, I am NOT willing to plonk down $25-30 for a hard-back book with the same (or not much better) cheap-o paper!
So, those books I really, really want to read that come out in hardback first and I have to wait another 6 months to a year for the paper-back version? Unless it's good paper (ok, I can forgive the not-stitched-in binding - I know that's costly), I simply WILL NOT buy it.
I, instead, take myself off to my wonderful local library and get to read the story for free - FOR FREE - where before, I would have been willing to pay that $25-30.
(We won't talk about the one time I sat down in a book store and read the whole novel that afternoon while sipping on chai tea. Well, why else do they put the chairs there?)
Now, all of that said, I do not buy them anymore (or at least very rarely). Because? It's not because of the cost. Well, not entirely. Previously, I had counted the cost as an investment in quality materials that would last.
But, over the last 5-10 years (maybe longer but this is when I started noticing), the hard-back book has changed. The bindings are glued together (one of my harry potters fell apart the first week I owned it, I mean the book split and separated and fell out of the binding - and I TAKE CARE OF my books!) and the paper is not much better quality than is currently found in a standard paper-back.
In order to mass-produce paperbacks, the paper produced is cheap and has a relatively high acid content. That means that, in a few years, the pages will begin to yellow and, after several more years, they will crack and break. I accept that. I understand that. I'm willing to pay $5-6 dollars for that.
BUT, I am NOT willing to plonk down $25-30 for a hard-back book with the same (or not much better) cheap-o paper!
So, those books I really, really want to read that come out in hardback first and I have to wait another 6 months to a year for the paper-back version? Unless it's good paper (ok, I can forgive the not-stitched-in binding - I know that's costly), I simply WILL NOT buy it.
I, instead, take myself off to my wonderful local library and get to read the story for free - FOR FREE - where before, I would have been willing to pay that $25-30.
(We won't talk about the one time I sat down in a book store and read the whole novel that afternoon while sipping on chai tea. Well, why else do they put the chairs there?)
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Home Improvement Shows
Ok - I did decide to editorialize about one thing today. I watched about 2 1/2 home improvement shows this morning (the ones where they update everything to sell). I love home improvement shows - usually. But today, I began to notice this focus on ripping up and tearing out perfectly good items simply because they're outdated.
"Right. That's the point, isn't it?" you're thinking.
Well, sorta', I suppose. But let me explain.
This woman was planning to sell her house. YES, it looked like it was furnished in 1983. YES, the stove and refrigerator were harvest gold but the dishwasher was white and clearly made in about 1998. YES, she had brass fixtures everywhere. And, apparently she was content. But her house wasn't selling (four months or so on the market).
Now - I completely get why they bought a new stove, a new refrigerator, and made her hide the microwave (because there really wasn't room for it). I do get it. And, frankly, it did look much more modern and pulled-together. BUT they pitched the working stove and the working refrigerator. BECAUSE. They. Were. Harvest. Gold.
Now, I love a well-decorated home. I enjoy sassy style and the 'wow' of a good paint job. I read Traditional Home (and a few others). So, I'm not knocking the re-do.
But, I am questioning the practice of pitching perfectly good stuff rather than working it into the design. Why not make 50s 60s 70s 80s stuff look modern-cool? NO - I do not mean I want the SAME shag carpet as was originally installed. That's just gross (and the dust mites and goo, well ewwwww...).
But, what I do mean is why not make it work? I happen to LIKE older kitchens (love 50s kitchen cabinets and stoves) or maybe make modern kitchens more adaptable (like when kitchens used to use furniture instead of attachable cabinets - I like that idea) or SOMETHING so we're not throwing out perfectly good kitchen-ware because it's harvest gold.
Just a thought.
"Right. That's the point, isn't it?" you're thinking.
Well, sorta', I suppose. But let me explain.
This woman was planning to sell her house. YES, it looked like it was furnished in 1983. YES, the stove and refrigerator were harvest gold but the dishwasher was white and clearly made in about 1998. YES, she had brass fixtures everywhere. And, apparently she was content. But her house wasn't selling (four months or so on the market).
Now - I completely get why they bought a new stove, a new refrigerator, and made her hide the microwave (because there really wasn't room for it). I do get it. And, frankly, it did look much more modern and pulled-together. BUT they pitched the working stove and the working refrigerator. BECAUSE. They. Were. Harvest. Gold.
Now, I love a well-decorated home. I enjoy sassy style and the 'wow' of a good paint job. I read Traditional Home (and a few others). So, I'm not knocking the re-do.
But, I am questioning the practice of pitching perfectly good stuff rather than working it into the design. Why not make 50s 60s 70s 80s stuff look modern-cool? NO - I do not mean I want the SAME shag carpet as was originally installed. That's just gross (and the dust mites and goo, well ewwwww...).
But, what I do mean is why not make it work? I happen to LIKE older kitchens (love 50s kitchen cabinets and stoves) or maybe make modern kitchens more adaptable (like when kitchens used to use furniture instead of attachable cabinets - I like that idea) or SOMETHING so we're not throwing out perfectly good kitchen-ware because it's harvest gold.
Just a thought.
A couple points of interest...
First - happy father's day to all, my dad especially and particularly (of course :)).
Now, I've decided that, since I have the summer off, I shall begin as I mean to go on.
Goal 1 - weed out excess and duplicate paperwork. That shouldn't really take too long but it needs to be done.
Goal 2 - finish knitting projects, and by that I mean the ones I've been dawdling over for years - literally.
Goal 3 - 30 days - 30,000 words. Yup. Oh yup.
So, that's it. Should be a blast. No editorializing today - just goal-oriented focus. I believe I'm going to go read now. :)
Now, I've decided that, since I have the summer off, I shall begin as I mean to go on.
Goal 1 - weed out excess and duplicate paperwork. That shouldn't really take too long but it needs to be done.
Goal 2 - finish knitting projects, and by that I mean the ones I've been dawdling over for years - literally.
Goal 3 - 30 days - 30,000 words. Yup. Oh yup.
So, that's it. Should be a blast. No editorializing today - just goal-oriented focus. I believe I'm going to go read now. :)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Economy And Confusion
First - a quick point - apparently, "they" have decided to put Kings back on. Go figure. Now, I'll watch but I don't want the rug pulled out from under me again...maybe I won't watch.
But more importantly - what's the rush to push through half-formed ideas about finance and health care? Nothing has occured that hasn't happened many times in the past with either one.
So, why the rush? I would be far more interested in some careful deliberation and a well-thought-out plan rather than the hodgepodge, cobbled-together, unclear-agenda ideas that are being put forth as plans.
And at what point did we as a country start to demonize the value of asking questions and disagreeing (oh, right, that was a political device that came from 9/11 - asking questions is unpatriotic).
Personally, I want to know that the people voting in laws are ASKING LOTS of tough question. I want to know that folks have put in some careful deliberation and some fact-finding time on the matter. I don't want them voting in things because they feel like it's better than nothing. NO. Here's a thought folks, let's take a bit more time, ask questions, and iron out an elegant solution.
Please.
But more importantly - what's the rush to push through half-formed ideas about finance and health care? Nothing has occured that hasn't happened many times in the past with either one.
So, why the rush? I would be far more interested in some careful deliberation and a well-thought-out plan rather than the hodgepodge, cobbled-together, unclear-agenda ideas that are being put forth as plans.
And at what point did we as a country start to demonize the value of asking questions and disagreeing (oh, right, that was a political device that came from 9/11 - asking questions is unpatriotic).
Personally, I want to know that the people voting in laws are ASKING LOTS of tough question. I want to know that folks have put in some careful deliberation and some fact-finding time on the matter. I don't want them voting in things because they feel like it's better than nothing. NO. Here's a thought folks, let's take a bit more time, ask questions, and iron out an elegant solution.
Please.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Kings
GACK. I just found out that ANOTHER good tv show that I am
really getting into HAS. BEEN. CANCELED.
I am really enjoying "Kings". Good imagery, intriguing plot and characters. They're moving it to Saturday nights (where I'll STILL be watching it) and then I'm hearing that they'll cancel it after the season run.
Why? Low ratings?
But it's GOOD. Kinda' like the show "My Own Worst Enemy". Both are extremely interesting shows...and both, apparently, are going, going, gone.
What's happening to intelligent tv? Oh, wait, an oxymoron?
GACK.
really getting into HAS. BEEN. CANCELED.
I am really enjoying "Kings". Good imagery, intriguing plot and characters. They're moving it to Saturday nights (where I'll STILL be watching it) and then I'm hearing that they'll cancel it after the season run.
Why? Low ratings?
But it's GOOD. Kinda' like the show "My Own Worst Enemy". Both are extremely interesting shows...and both, apparently, are going, going, gone.
What's happening to intelligent tv? Oh, wait, an oxymoron?
GACK.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Sookie Stackhouse novels
Ok. I was just looking at the last few posts on the blog...been a while huh? Can anyone tell that I've been home sick for A WEEK! And it's probably obvious that I'm feeling some better, since I'm updating the blog (reduced to that! oh heavens, say it isn't so :)).
Anyway, I was looking at my post (from 2008?!) on the Anita Blake novels (which I did enjoy but have become a tad disenchanted with) and I figured I'd mention the Sookie Stackhouse novels this time. I was introduced to them, as many have been, through HBO's series, "True Blood".
Now, I really do enjoy "True Blood". I like the characters, the settings, the filming (LOVE the camera angles, cuts, and lighting). It's good. I got a little bored with the Jason/V story line but, I still enjoyed it. Sookie, Tara, Lafayatte, Eric, Pam, Terry - clever concepts.
And, when I found it was based on a series, of course (me being me) I went and read them all - in about two and a half weeks. I enjoyed the books. They are lighthearted even though some really gory violence runs throughout. They have a good sense of the comedic and they have wit about them. Obviously, I enjoyed them, I read all eight (I even went and got the newest from the library - special trip). And I was relieved (spoiler coming) that Jason didn't even DO V in the books.
And, thus far, they haven't gone the overly pornographic route of the Anita Blake novels (who am I to knock gratutious sex? But Anita...well...shark? jumped?).
So, I probably should update my reading list.
Especially since, right now, I'm reading "Taming of the Shrew" and Words in Air: The Complete Correspondence of Elizabeth Bishop and Robert Lowell.
Anyway, I was looking at my post (from 2008?!) on the Anita Blake novels (which I did enjoy but have become a tad disenchanted with) and I figured I'd mention the Sookie Stackhouse novels this time. I was introduced to them, as many have been, through HBO's series, "True Blood".
Now, I really do enjoy "True Blood". I like the characters, the settings, the filming (LOVE the camera angles, cuts, and lighting). It's good. I got a little bored with the Jason/V story line but, I still enjoyed it. Sookie, Tara, Lafayatte, Eric, Pam, Terry - clever concepts.
And, when I found it was based on a series, of course (me being me) I went and read them all - in about two and a half weeks. I enjoyed the books. They are lighthearted even though some really gory violence runs throughout. They have a good sense of the comedic and they have wit about them. Obviously, I enjoyed them, I read all eight (I even went and got the newest from the library - special trip). And I was relieved (spoiler coming) that Jason didn't even DO V in the books.
And, thus far, they haven't gone the overly pornographic route of the Anita Blake novels (who am I to knock gratutious sex? But Anita...well...shark? jumped?).
So, I probably should update my reading list.
Especially since, right now, I'm reading "Taming of the Shrew" and Words in Air: The Complete Correspondence of Elizabeth Bishop and Robert Lowell.
I have to confess, I've been seduced by Twitter. There's something about editing text and ideas for that tiny little box and hitting send... it's weird, I know. I was resistant. I am no more.
That said, I still like the longer work. Blog= prose; twitter=poetry. An overly simplistic analogy - oh yeah. But it makes me smile.
So, yeah, I've been spending time twittering.
That said, I still like the longer work. Blog= prose; twitter=poetry. An overly simplistic analogy - oh yeah. But it makes me smile.
So, yeah, I've been spending time twittering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)