i guess cheating on letterman (on national tv) was just the beginning...

first he cancels his interview on letterman's show, saying that he has to rush back to washington. now, he would have been proven to be lying by public record alone , but then he attends an interview with katie couric at pretty much the same time and place the original interview was to have taken place. then he putzes around ny for another evening and night, not leaving new york until the next morning.

then, having "suspended" his campaign for this monumentally important task, his campaign accidentally leaks a post-debate ad, before he even announced that he would be *attending* the debate. while this is a tactic apparently ripped from kerry's playbook, mccain's version is slightly worse in that 1) his campaign isn't even well-run enough to do it properly (i.e. release the ad *after* the debate), and 2) the ad had to have been prepared before it was released, which means that it was being prepared when he supposedly wasn't attending the debate.

now this.

so apparently... he had to suspend his campaign and rush back to washington because he couldn't simply "phone in," but then just makes phone calls from 1) home and 2) campaign headquarters (instead of going to, say, capitol hill)?

does he think we're stupid, or is he trying to be funny?

and then came the sudden realization...

i was watching football on tv this weekend, and i saw an overhead shot of the personnel change that comes at the beginning of a drive, and my mind began to wander. the field always looks bigger on tv. i thought this when i was in high school, looking at that stupid crowned-makes-free-drainage-system field, i thought this when i was in college looking at the much nicer, groomed, flat, baked-dry-with-lights-all-night worsham field. on tv, these little dots have to run halfway across this giant green expanse to get into position. in real life, it's just a short position change. at least it is for them.

i was just thinking about how i've always been a bit lacking in the athleticism department... i still have scars on top of my knees from when i managed to skin them both at the same time. have you ever skinned the top of a knee? it's not that easy.

it's not so much that i was a clumsy kid (and i'd argue that i wasn't), but that i couldn't keep up with the other kids. the other girls. we were holding hands and running, and i just couldn't keep up. i ended up getting dragged, and both my knees were bloodied.

and then i remembered the first time i saw a football field. we were on a field trip (from school or from daycare... i really wouldn't be surprised either way), and they took us to a football field, and the thing was so huge. and i was tiny. most of the class took off for the other end of the field. i'm not sure i ever made it. the field was just SO BIG. and then it hit me. that field. there's no other field it could have been.

i've been on owen field before.

maybe they should spend less time playing with jerry seinfeld...

am i the only one who finds it unacceptable that hotmail classic causes internet explorer to throw errors? this isn't even one of those "unforeseen possibilities." this is all under your roof, microsoft. you might want to get your act together.

(it should be noted that i'm only using internet explorer to access my hotmail because hotmail, in all its wisdom, has decided that ff3 is an inferior browser that is incapable of handling the full, live version of hotmail... and the classic version looks and acts like upchuck. i'm sure microsoft will get right on that.)

global warming... fact or fiction?

i don't care.

no, seriously, why does it matter? the common inference is that if there is global warming, and/or if it is spurred by human activity, then we're in a situation that calls for conservation, turning green, and being conscious of what we're doing to our planet. bullshit.

i'm taking issue with the conditional. while not explicitly stating anything of the sort, the inference that the existence of global warming calls for us to care for our planet implies that we don't have to care for the planet without global warming. while it doesn't logically follow, we've never been known as a species ruled by logic.

if global warming is, in fact, a myth, we're still facing other issues that should make us reexamine our consumption. our fossil fuel stores are finite. we're uprooting, killing, poisoning, consuming, or harvesting the plants that keep the ground from blowing/washing away. if the human population continues to grow, we are going to, one day, either run out of places to put people, or run out of places to put the things that keep people alive (you know... the places that grow your food or clean your water). blah-de-blah blah blah. you get the idea. calling, or even proving, global warming a myth does not give you a free pass on this "care for our planet" thing.

***

i'm really not trying to sound all sanctimonious here. i am far from the poster child for conservation or preservation. i eat meat. i drive a 197hp car (though, i guess in my defense, it is a 4-banger and gets over 30mpg on my commute. i still could do better).

i'm really just getting sick of people saying that global warming is a natural phenomenon as if that makes everything just hunky-dory. even worse, i see people who say that global warming has not been proven, and therefore, we don't have to see it as a threat. really? i've seen no proof that polar bears like to eat people, so i'll go hang out with some.

someone should have been paying attention in math. or philosophy. this sure sounds like denying the antecedent to me.

maybe i should just not say anything...

it happened again this morning. it was some ridiculous hour in the morning, and the beeps started.

they only went on for about 10 minutes this time, but still... i know they empty the compactor more than once every few months, but the issue only happens about that often, so... how are they handling it properly all the other times?

now i've shot myself in the foot, and i'm going to be woken up and kept awake every time they come to take the compactor...

er... three posts in a day?

i blame norma. she didn't have enough posts to keep me busy.

i saw a cnn link, Sobbing as my old car was towed away (actual link text--not my words), and my thought was... is this abnormal?

i know it's easy to associate this reaction to materialism, but it's really more about emotion, sentimentality. if it were about materialism, she would probably have been more excited about the new car than sad about the old car (upgrade!).

when my family's first car (a yellow pinto, post-blowup redesign) had some misalignment or slippage in the steering column (i don't know... i was probably 6 or 7 when this happened), we sold it for $95 (or $75; i'm not sure), and i hid in my room and cried as it was towed away, refusing to watch. this one i remember. the one i don't remember is crying when they cut down "my" tree (the tree outside my bedroom window. we lived in an apartment, so it was never even "my" tree to begin with).

up until read this article, it never occurred to me that anybody could find this strange or materialistic. overly sappy, maybe, but not strange. it's like taking away a child's safety blanket or favorite stuffed animal. the loss is akin to losing a friend.

don't believe me? try throwing away a child's blanket or stuffed animal and replacing it with one that is exactly. the. same. try it. you deal with the tears.

***

an aside: the photo caption says "Psychologists say it's common for an object to feel like it's become a part of you."

umm... i'm pretty sure that when the object is inanimate, it's uncommon for the object to feel... well, anything.

yes, i know it's a "proper" use of the word... but the ambiguity makes it hilarious.

***

once in a while, there will be the sound of large vehicles in reverse outside my bedroom window in the morning. most of the time, it's the truck that picks up our trash compactor, takes it away, and then brings it back, empty. normally, this takes two, maybe three sessions of reversing, so even if i'm awakened, it's not a huge deal. a few months ago, it once took a guy AN HOUR to take it away. i was quite unhappy with the disturbance (all i wanted was 15 more minutes!). he was bringing it back when i was leaving for work, so i got the hell outta there. no way i wanna get stuck in *that* fiasco.

this morning, we had a bit of a repeat. this time, the beeps only lasted for a three or four seconds, but there were also only three or for seconds between beep sessions (beep-beep-beep, rest, rest, rest, beep-beep-beep. you get the idea).

after it became clear that there was no way i'd be able to get back to sleep, i stumbled out to the living room and looked out the balcony to see if someone was taking away the compactor again. nada. it was also quieter in the living room, so i went back to the bedroom, looked out the window, and saw a caterpillar something-or-other (it looked like a compactor or a dozer, but maybe a mini-one? i'm not an equipment specialist; i don't know) going over the same bit of ground over and over. is the beeping really necessary in this situation?

and this isn't just me being selfish. the whole time, i was wondering how the kids could focus (i live across the street from an elementary school), especially since it was closer to them than it was to me.

okay, me being peeved about the whole thing has everything to do with me being selfish. but that doesn't stop me from wondering about it.

is it a good idea to bring in the heavy machinery while the kids are in school?

***

i seem to have angered blogger. apparently all my posts were written at 2:45 pm. and zero seconds.

again, i didn't do it.

not cool...

obama links mccain to limbaugh's extreme anti-immigration statements--by pointing out that they're both republicans.

seriously? after the whole wright controversy, you're going to use an even more tenuous link to claim that mccain is... well, whatever limbaugh is?

hmph.

politicians.

***

i suppose i should put in the disclaimer that this post is in no way suggesting that this means you should go and vote for mccain, or mr. mustachio, bob barr. bobb bar? mustachio.

and while we're on the topic, does anybody else find it unsettling that his mustache is a different color than the hair on his head? even odder is that his mustache is the darker of the two, suggesting either that he bleaches the hair on his head to be white (is that even possible?), or he dyes his mustache, but not his hair. i doubt either is the case, but i just find it really weird.

oh yeah, as i was saying... i really just wanted to point out that, while there are all sorts of things being reported about the other side(s), a politician is still a politician (apparently i'm biased against politicians).

uuh... i didn't do it on purpose?

so... i'm now caught up with norma's blog (it should be noted that i started this before i went off to get hitched), and it turns out that she mentioned the "i'm blogging this" shirt as well.

um... should i add that i originally thought the shirt should have said "i'm so blogging this"?

yeah, i thought not.

words and i... don't get along.

i nearly microwaved my yogurt (by which i mean... i almost stuck my yogurt instead of my bratwurst in the microwave).

then my brain (or whatever it is that makes voices in my head) went "i almost vacuumed my yogurt!"


i have a green shirt that i wear with the eggplant-colored waffle henley, and i always want to say "i look like an eggplant!"

but instead, i commonly say "i'm a grapefruit!"


... sometimes i'm amazed i've not been killed by stupidity.

how a blogger got her groove back?

i've been reading norma's blog (well, i'm "catching up," which means i'm working my way chronologically through the archives) lately, and while i usually prefer my knit blogs to be separate from day-to-day goings on in a knitter's life (um... otherwise, it's no longer a knit blog, but just a blog of a knitter), i love norma's. she's my mom's age, but she acts like me* (except for the working out. i have a hard time getting off my ass...), and talks like me, except that her grasp on the english language is better than mine. i like that. how else would i learn? it might just come down to the fact that i actually *like* norma. the other knitters who let life get in the way of their knit blogs... perhaps i just didn't like them.

anyway, so the point of this whole thing is that, after having been told that i needed to buy and constantly wear this shirt for a while, i started doing *other things* and neglected this blog.

now, i've always lived my life while simultaneously composing blog posts in my head. of course, i didn't know it at the time. i'd stick parts into my aim profile, or my away message. i'd spout bits at unsuspecting friends. i'd write things down (physically! with a pen and paper!) and not know what to do the resulting "note." blogging gave me that outlet i was looking for. and then it became too much trouble.

so, once again, my mentally composed blogs (or, really, my thoughts) got dumped on the heads of anybody who'd listen. away messages got too long. again.

that didn't bring me back to blogging.

i think it was, for some odd reason, norma that brought me back. here i am, mired in back entries to read, and i'm taking time out of reading them to write my own. new entries, i mean, not back entries. that norma. she's inspiring.

who knew i need a swearing, middle-aged stenographer in my life?

***

*of course, when i say "me," i mean "my archetype." i don't mean to suggest that the two of us would be interchangeable in any way.

***

when i first heard of the "irish potato famine," i only understood famine to mean "extreme hunger." i just couldn't understand why the irish would be hungry for, specifically, potatoes; or why that hunger would lead to them pouring into the states. seriously... i didn't know we produced that many potatoes, especially in those days.

well, i looked up the word "famine" just now, and not only is "hunger" not a main definition, it's nearly last. the only entry it outranks is labeled as archaic.

how do i come up with these things?

silly me...

what was i thinking? i've been trying to *gain* weight. apparently i've been doing it wrong all along!

these girls are skinnier and bonier than i am. and i consider me too bony.

i'm nearly convinced that the models on the runway are required to be so stick-like so that the designers don't have to worry about the darts (and other shaping) being "right." you know, 'cause they don't need any.

... and then i was looking for witch gorillas. (in which homonyms ruin my life)

*note: this blog entry will be a different experience for chinese and non-chinese readers, but the end result will be the same, and there is no requisite understanding or non-understanding to read this entry.

when i was young, there was a very surreal experience that involved me getting to stay up late (yay!), driving out to an empty field with my mom and her friends (um...), and looking for "hui4 xing1." i didn't know what that was, but i didn't bother asking on the car ride out because, well... that was later, so i didn't care about it.

so when we got to the field, my mom told me to look for "xing1 xing1" with "sao4 ba3." i, being a child of probably 3 (holy shit... i never thought about that. how do i remember this?), figured that i should be looking for gorillas in the field we happened to be facing. gorillas who, for some reason, happened to have brooms.

i looked, and i looked, but it was just too dark to see anything, even on the flat terrain we were facing. i mentioned this to my mom, who responded that i should be looking in the sky.

w. t. f.

so, of course, being 3, and not having a great grasp of what i should actually be doing in this situation, i started looking for gorillas. with brooms. in the sky. and it made total sense to me. because, you know, the gorillas with the brooms seemed like a stupid notion, but *witch* gorillas... well, that explains the brooms.

brilliant.

i still couldn't see them.

i said as much, and someone mentioned that i was probably too young to appreciate it anyway, so i was left to sleep in the back of the car (the adults were not *away* from the car; they just weren't *in* the car).

***

*note: this is the part i'm actually fuzzy about, and might actually be made up. no matter, since it's actually the previous sequence of events that is relevant.

on the trip home, i asked my mom if she saw the gorilla witches. she was confused by my question, and i came to find that she was actually telling me to look for a *star* with a *tail.* the tail part might have come up while i was still looking, though the interchangeability of the terms "tail" and "broom" while she was speaking probably contributed to the image of a witch gorilla in my head.

anyway, this, of course, means i was supposed to be looking for halley's comet.

***

still confused? gather round for the explanation!

first, let's just get this out of the way: it's easier to be ambiguous about plurals in chinese, especially when speaking to children. nouns have no plural forms, and you must rely on articles to convey cardinality (by which i mean singular vs. plural). when there are no articles, it's ambiguous.

gorilla == xing1 xing1 == star in kid-speak.
strictly speaking, it's
gorilla == xing1 xing1 (or, according to mandarintools.com, da4 xing1 xing1. da4, in this case, is "big." i'm not sure if it's required)
star == xing1
however, the kid-speak version is fairly common (think "mommy" for mother), and makes appearances in common usage, such as in "twinkle twinkle little star."

and semantically,
sao4 ba3 == broom == hui4
had i partially understood "hui4 xing1," i might have been looking for a gorilla with a broom anyway. i know gorilla is "xing1 xing1," but to make compound words, you generally go with just "xing1" (which is, apparently, and entry in mandarintools.com as "ape.").

however,
hui4 xing1 == comet
it's a different character for hui, but, again, homonym.

so this is what it comes down to. i had some trouble interpreting some homonyms when i was 3. i have to wait till i'm nearly 80 to make up for it.

homonyms.