google.com, pub-4909507274277725, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0 Slapinions

Search This Blog

Monday, March 10, 2008

Smiley's 3rd Birthday Party Pt. 1

On Friday the 7th my Smiley turned 3 years old and we celebrated with a 'Bug' party at the house.

Lisa had picked up inflatable insect balloons at Target and put them up around the dining room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smiley was initially scared of the insects, but we told him they were harmless andhe got over it. We LIED!!!

 

 

We'd also planned on a course of lasagna for the adults and sandwiches for the kids, but at the last moment Lent reared its ugly head. It was Friday after all, and while Lisa and her family are Lutheran mine are Catholic. So Lis improvised a pasta buffet with Alfredo and spaghetti sauce and an optional sausage dish.

 

Surprisingly the pasta idea was a smash hit, and we'll probably offer it again in the future.

 

While we're on the subject of food, the menu also included ants on a log (raisins and peanut butter on celery) and a bug covered mudhill cake. Without question the cake was the ugliest thing I'd ever eaten and looked downright disgusting, more a dung hill than mud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even so it was one of the tastiest I've had, more like a brownie than cake.

 

The house got crowded fast with 12 kids and 14 adults in attendance.  The kids dominated the second floor, the adults the dining and living rooms. The kitchen was neutral territory. Check out all the presents in the 3rd shot!

 

 

 

 

 

The first game was 'eat the ants'. A spoonful of jimmies - one for each year of the child's age - was placed on a paper plate in front of them on the floor. Without using their hands they had to eat the plate clean, with the winner being the first done.

 

 

 

 

Then I was dispatched upstairs to hide 30 rubber insects for a hide and seek game. The kids were sent upstairs by age to try and find them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Here's the problem. YaYa qualified for a prize but had won the ant contest and therefore wasn't eligible for another prize (the law is the law people!). She then melted down and had a hissy fit which I quickly tried to squash. Problem is she eventually admitted to being too embarrassed to go back to the party, which led to a bigger fit when I demanded she rejoin the festivities. "I'm six, I'm too old to have had a fit, I can't go out there!"

 

Man. Sigh. Kids.]

 

Ok, I had to chop the post in half for AOL. More later!

Sunday, March 9, 2008

My 100th post of the year - and of course, it's political ;)

Well, if the pic above doesn't clue you in, this one's political; proceed at your own discrection.

I wasn't going to post about last week's primaries until someone was foolish enough to ask my opinion.

Short version: good job HR Clinton. I was happy.  

Long version: I don't think it changes the final outcome. Consider it akin to our experience on Iwo Jima; the Japanese fought like hell and bloodied us left and right, but in the end it was still only a short time before the war was over and they surrendered.

Last Tuesday might have been her final hurrah. Or not. Like her husband she has a knack for surviving longer then you'd expect. But this isn't a marathon, where everyone who lasts till the end has bragging rights; here you win or you lose.

Survival isn't enough.

Then again given the free pass he has in the media, the monetary advantage and the over the top adulation of 'the masses', I think Obama should have closed the deal. That he couldn't should lead to some changes in the thinking of his braintrust.

 - purple is Obama wins, pink Clinton. Iimage blatantly borrowed from Electoral-Vote.com; I'll remove it if it becomes an issue.

On that score I think it a shame that the Dems have allocated delegates (in many states) on a proportionate basis, meaning she took Ohio by an 11%  margin - a legitimate landslide politically -  and still had to share the delegates with Obama.

Why??? In the general election it doesn't work that way, it's winner take all. If a candidate can take a state primary I think it only makes sense to act, correctly or not, as if that decides which of the two is capable of notching up the state in the fall. Anything else is fairy-tale 'fairness' that generates nothing but division and drama. It's certainly done so this year.

As it stands I think the odds still favor Obama. But HRC is now in it through Pennsylvania and *possibly* through June. I don't worship that fact as the death knell of the Dems. That idea is obscenely overrated. Folks can go to blows at the convention and I think they'll still have time to pull it together and giveit a go.

A popular view, and one I share to an extent, is that slim delegate lead be damned, Obama can't pull in the big prizes that matter in November. Ohio, Texas, California, New York, and the disputed Michigan and Florida all lined up for Clinton.

Hey, I love living in Wisconsin, but if you have a canddate who takes Wisconsin, Wyoming and Maine and forfeits the one's listed above, then I think you have the makings for a loser in the general election.

It's not that simple, naturally. New York and (probably) California would go blue if you put Jesus himself on the ticket for the GOP. Therefore the win - or rather the loss - of those states in the primary is largely irrelevant.  Likewise TX is pretty assured to go Red (or course, ditto that for some of Obama's wins).

Should Clinton hold her own in the rinky-dink contests, then take Pennsylvania and somehow have Michigan and Florida thrown back into the mix (by seating their banned delegates or doing it all over again), and should John Edwards throw his 26-32 delegates to her, THEN I  think she goes into the convention having muted Obama's momentum and with a legit arguement that she deserves the nomination.

[on that score, nice year to play hardball and ban two state's field of delegates for infractions. Thanks Howard Dean, you're a peach. Best of all Howard, with all the recent calls for changing the rules midstream and allowing the delegates/revoting/blah blah you've reinforced the notion that the DNC has little respect for rules and law. Good job buddy!]

What about a shared ticket? I can't see Obama playing second fiddle; more likely he'd hold off and try again in 4 or 8 years. And I can't picture him being tied down with her as an intrusive, media hog VP, especially given his mantra of 'change'.

So for HRC it's really her last hurrah. She doesn't have the option of waiting 4/8 more years. Therefore anyone who says she should step aside or concede gracefully needs to get a grip on reality and understand that, like it or not, she's a brawler. She's not going out until the bell rings, and maybe not even then.

I still think Obama will take it, but his free pass in the media is running out and HRC is going tobloddy him up a bit; he'll have a tougher time in the fall because of what happened this past Tuesday.

* * *

In other political news, Wyoming is now sending a Democrat to the House in place of retired former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Sure the Dems put a great candidate out there and the GOP . . not so much, but anyway you spin it it's a PR blow to the GOP. That district hasn't sent a Dem to Congress for 11 terms. Not good, not good.


Tags: , , , , ,

On Boots, cupcakes, my hair, sign language, and a cranky baby

Before we begin, let me point out that my house was clean on Friday for Smiley's party. Today, a scant 40 hours or so since the party ended, my house is something last seen in news reports about houses with 100 cats and 2 feet of garbage on the floor.

15% is leftover party mess, and 80% is the kids, pure and simple. They earn partial credit on the remaining 5% too, since I tore apart our bedroom looking for a credit card I assumed had fallen out of Lisa's pants pocket. In reality, the kids had swiped it  to use on Lu's pretend cash register.

Ugh.

Smiley, meanwhile, seems to have adopted his own set of sign-language. A quick tap with his forefinger on his cheek seems to signify his name, or 'I' or 'me'. A similar brushing motion on the same spot, in imitation of shaving, appears to be 'boy' or 'man'. 'Girl' or 'lady' may be represented by a brushing motion of the hair; that one I'm not sure of yet.

Likewise he has gestures for 'food' and 'drink'.

YaYa wrote a 3 chapter book on fairies, richly illustrated, and presented it to usyesterday. It's hard to decipher many of her imaginative spellings, but again: why couldn't she do it for the contest?

Oh, and a quick slap to my own wrist. I complain about her and meanwhile I miss the deadline for a writing contest in the local paper. Apparently something in our DNA enjoys pi**ing away opportunites. (also - two rejections in the last 30 days; waiting on more)

Irrelevant aside: I am truly in love with my size 14 black Stanley ankle-high workboots, complete with a magnificent steel toe. They've kept me dry and warm through all the 6 feet of snow this winter and protected my toes from my obsession (shared with Parker) of kicking ice, and I adore them. They're my first ever pair of work boots, but if I live to be 90 I'll always own a pair.

Lisa a moment ago: "You're blogging about your boots?"

Me: "Yup".

Lisa, with disgust: "Live high Dan. Live high."

In other news the Baby WILL - NOT - STOP - CRYING and kept me up most of the night and straight on til now. But, yin-yang and all that, Lu's been an angel, and even right now is helping her Mom decorate cupcakes for her cousin's party.

On the other hand she's downright cold about my hair. I just asked her if I could have her donate some hair to me. Her answer, a typical mix of age-appropriate speech and some lisp:

"Ur never gettin' it back. It's gone. And you should lose some weight too. You gonna be old real soon."

 

Saturday, March 8, 2008

A rant about the kids and some pics of George Washington

I have to do a post about Smiley's 3rd birthday party, but to be frank the # of pictures to upload is intimidating. So in the meantime here's a post I wrote over the last week, 'round about the 4th.

To tell you the truth, I was disapointed in YaYa today. She came home having been scolded by another parent for co-ercing (albeit nonviolently) a cookie from her friend. She also had her name put on the board and was kept in from recess for arguing.

Frankly, she's a bit of a Junie B. Jones.

It's all cyclical. A month ago Smiley was the terror of the house. Then LuLu. Now it's YaYa's turn. Soon enough the worm will turn again. It does get old fast.

[I do realize that when you put an Oldest Child used to bossing around her siblings into a social cliche of Youngest Children used to being bossed around by siblings, someone's gonna rise to the top of the pecking order. I think she is ill-served by that setup and would have been better off in a cliche of stronger, more dominant personalities who wouldn't take her guff, but que sera and all that.]

But what really disappointed me was her refusal to participate in this years Reading Rainbow Child Authors contest. She seemed very interested up to recently, but it was like pulling teeth to get her to do the 5 required illustrations and then she just up and said it wasn't something she wanted to do this year. Never mind all the stories she writes on her own; she didn't want to do it and, reluctantly, I honored that.

Fine, I guess. Certainly not the first or last time one of the kids will make the ol' regret meter ping, but to me it just seems like a waste of talent and ambition.

One of the apparent reasons for Lu's recent turnaround was a promise that after 5 'perfect' days she would receive a new Princess area rug for her room. We figured it would be start-stop-start over for weeks, but nope, she reigned it in and won the prize. Here it is: Lis surprised her with it tonight after dinner. Lis also tossed in the Belle lamp Lu is looking at.

And the President's Day masks finally came home. Here's the work she bragged about:

Look at Lu's hair. She was complimented on it all day. I tease her and say that I want my hair back, as I had that thick dark hair most of my life. Maybe some day she'll donate to my hair transplant :)

Here's a pic of Lisa and Lu on the way out the door to Stars on Ice; yeah, I know Lis has her eyes closed and Lu looks dopey, but concentrate on the outfit. The alternate pics have Lu scowling and being a typical unco-operative kid.

To balance the scale, here's a pic of Lisa and Smiley that day.

Today (the 8th) YaYa had a screaming fit on the way out to the car, calling me the worst Dad ever, followed by Smiley having a crying jag in the store over a balloon (I finally weened him of it, and in the checkout line this[redacted] woman comes up to us and says 'here, yourboy forgot his balloon!' and started it all over again), and then Lu joined the fray when we got back home.

Happy happy joy joy.


Tags: , ,

Friday, March 7, 2008

Lost: The Other Woman (season 4, episode 6)

Full disclosure: my cable box went cukoo at 8:56 central time, meaning I missed most of this episode's last few minutes. It returned to normalcy in time for me to see Ben walking free among the Losties, but I have no idea what I missed.

 

Recently, in the wake of the writer's strike, it was revealed that the rest of the season will now be trimmed to only an additional five episodes. Even so it will end with the same finale; in other words, the story line will be condensed this season and some stories bumped to future seasons.

 

For those who complained online that they couldn't imagine how any episode could be shuffled to another year without damaging the show as a whole, take a look at this one. A good story, full of action with some interesting fleshing out of the Juliet character: but all in all a tale that could have been told last season, or this one, or one two years down the road.

 

Essentially the plot and backstory boil down to a sentence each: Juliet and Jack pursue the two freighter personnel to stop them from releasing poison gas on the island. In the backstory Juliet's affair with Goodwin leads Ben to send him to his death (ala David's actions in the Bible).

 

What do we learn? What questions are raised/answered?

 

Well, Locke again demonstrates his inability to lead and his predisposition to being suckered in by a con man.  Be it his father, the undercover cop, or Ben, time and time again he goes against all logic and listens to the wrong guy. Why oh why take Ben's word on anything? Why release him to the community? Why take his bait and even talk to the guy?

 

[oh, and uh, if you're worried about rebellion: don't release a hated evil-doer into a community skeptical of your leadership. The word I'm looking for John, is Duh.]

 

Via the backstory and his manipulation of Locke we get yet another lesson on how devious Ben is - "I've always got a plan John". This guy is turning into the Superman of bad guys, and no one's found his Kryptonite quite yet. One word of warning: I'd tone down his all-powerful evil powers, or he'll be so over the top he'll become a farce.

 

Do I buy his spiel about Charles Widmore as the big bad villain of the piece? No, not really. Too obvious for a true Lost revelation, although some facts certainly fit. Wait and see, as always.  

 

Juliet continues to perplex me. There's real meat to her character but, perhaps because of the actress, she just seems so ho-hum to me. Between her and Kate I'd probably go with her (more brains, good job, no known felony record and all) but as it's being played I can see why Jack still carries a torch for Kate off-isle.

 

[nice setup at the episode's start, prepping the audience to assume Juliet was off-isle and one of the 'rescued'. Well played, sirs, well played]

 

[I also love the exchange between her and Jack. To paraphrase: "it's very tiring being a Other Jack" and "Don't you have any secrets you don't want everyone to know?" Jack responds: "Sure. You read them all in my file". Touche!]

 

Juliet is the 'other woman' of the title, first in Harper-Goodwin's marriage (Harper-Goodwin indeed - it sounds like a publishing group) then, in a fashion, between Jack and Kate.

 

 

Near the start of the show the 'whispers' start and Harper

 

 

appears to instruct Juliet to stop Dan and Lewis from going to the Tempest power station.

 

 

Some points here:

 

  1. The Tempest is a play about a sorcerer that manipulates survivors of a shipwreck.
  2. In retrospect, Harpers instructions very nearly put the lives of the entire island at risk and in the hands of Ben. When combined with the whispers, does this mean that Harper was a manifestation of the Monster? I think so. After all, killing all the survivors 'protects' the island.
  3. What's the point of having mass quantities of poison gas lying around in a power station? What kind of Nazi stuff is going on there anyway?

 

I wonder about Ben's "[the rabbit] didn't have a number on it, did it?" comment. Were the rabbits mutated as part of an experiment or was he just being a wisenheimer? Ah, who cares I guess. Small potatoes when you want to gas a whole community and dispatch others to their death for banging a girl you have a crush on.

 

[Oh, and for the record, I think he sent Goodwin out to put him in harm's way, but I don't think there's anyway he could have predicted he'd meet his death on the assignment.]

 

That's just about it I think. No numbers that I caught, no great hidden meanings that I managed to catch. Of course, there are those missing three minutes . .

 

Oh, and uh, that man of Ben's on the boat, the 'face you thought you'd never see again' . ..c'mon folks, it's Michael, don't you think?

 

Til next week Lost fans!

Not on AOL/AIM? Comment Here.


Tags:

Thursday, March 6, 2008

What the panel of docs and teachers said about Smiley

In retrospect I find my Favre post, at its heart, a pretentious piece of crap. Kindly ignore it.

 

As an excuse I can say that I wrote it while waiting to leave for the final evaluation of Smiley's learning ability. I was a bit nervous. I was expecting something out of Back to School, with Lisa and I playing the role of Rodney Dangerfield facing down a hostile panel of educators.

 

Instead what we got was a friendly discussion around a conference table, with the psychologists displaying their opinions on a large projection screen in the room.

 

They were very complimentary of us, especially Lisa (for her persistence in getting him seen) and of Smiley in general. "You guys are swell," one of the doctor's said, causing a giggle in the room.


All three of the ladies that saw Smiley were there, and all gave their opinions. #1 was still critical of his overall abilities, but #'s 2 and 3 leant far more weight to the opposite side of the scale.

 

In the end here's the verdict: for the time being the assumption is his only learning problem is his inability to speak, despite an obvious interest in doing so. The cause? "We may never know," they said.

 

The solution? They're going to put him into a special education class three hours a day, four days a week, for the next (projected) two years, with a full re-evaluation in three years. The class will be of kids with 'normal' academic ability but speech difficulties, which means he won't be below or above the curve.

 

They did mention that should a more serious problem be present, it's far more likely to be spotted with daily exposure to a classroom than a few hours of testing, so in a way we're not out of the woods yet.

 

The big boss of MPS who was at the meeting go the ball rolling quickly, making a conference call then and there; he starts Monday at 12 noon at a nearby school we once toured for YaYa.

 

So my boy is going to school .  . . I'm happy and proud and I think it'll be good for him.

 

I'll update everyone after his first day.

 


Tags:

Happy Birthday Stacey

Before I run out of time today, let me say that Lisa and I wish our niece/Goddaughter Stacey a very happy 7th birthday!

On a less joyous note today is also, as you know, the 172nd anniversary of the fall of the Alamo (may Crockett/Travis/Bowie live forever in our memory) and the 12th anniversary of a horrific car accident that nearly crippled my cousin.

All in all, I think we'll stick with the birthday wishes :) Happy Birthday!

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The End of an Era - Brett Favre Retires

Brett Favre, three time MVP, Super Bowl Champion, record holder for most consecutive games at QB, most TD passes, most wins at QB, and beloved hero of millions of Wisconsin fans, retired yesterday after 17 years in the NFL.

'I know I can still play. I'm just tired mentally. I'm just tired.', he was quoted as saying.

The news came as a shock following a great season that only ended in OT during the NFC Championship game, as most fans were  confident he'd return to lead the charge towards another elusive Super Bowl ring.

If you don't live in Wisconsin, or haven't for the last 15 years, I think it's impossible to accurately portray Favre's status in this state.

In Wisconsin he is sports icon/respected elder/warrior/leader/sex symbol/iron man. He is Moses, bringing a once proud people out of obscurity and to the Promised Land. He is Achilles, strong and feared, but with weaknesses that made him human. He is Beowulf/Arthur/Washington and Babe Ruth.

If this was a different era bards would sing tales of his life, and centuries from now children on the banks of the Wolf River would recite his exploits in exaggerated awe.

Think I'm stretching the truth? Move here.

The local nightly news devoted a full 14 minutes to his retirement, at which point the anchor apologized for having to relate 'other' news - like those pesky Texas and Ohio primaries. A few minutes later the sports segment started and we were back at it.

A local company started producing 'Green Bay 4 Ever' t-shirts and marketing them. Local papers blasted headlines as large as any announcing a war or the moon landing. Montages recounting his wife's cancer, his father's death, his own addiction, and his greatness flowed across the airwaves.

Here's the front page of the Journal website from this morning, a full day later:

You have to understand, the Packers had more world championships than any other team in the NFL. Green Bay left the '60's, the era of Lombardi, the undisputed kings of the road and then . . .  30 horrible years of nothing.

No championships. No Super-Bowl appearances. A rare playoff appearance in a strike year.

I remember many times watching the Packers take a comfortable lead (this would be in the midst of one of any number of mediocre years) and turning away from the TV, fearing they'd give up the game.

And they would.

4-12 . . I remember that as the last season before Holmgren and Favre took over. 4 and 12.

And then nearly two decades of constant playoff appearances, highlight reel passes, a Super Bowl ring and another that should-have-been, and a quarterback that is legitimately mentioned in best-ever discussions.

(I remember Socialist, many years ago, telling me in a hushed tone. "I always thought we'd have a decent quarterback someday. But I never dreamed we'd have a stud like Favre, not  the Packers. Never in a million years . . .")

I never fully embraced the Favre religion, largely because I'm only a casual football fan, but also because it seemed a bit too . . . well, like worship.

But I do remember the excitement and hope some kid from Mississippi inspired in the frozen tundra of Wisconsin. I remember Milwaukee exploding when the Pack took the Super Bowl in New Orleans. I remember disgust over his interceptions and acceptance of it as part of his necessary 'gunslinger' mentality. I remember getting sick of his yearly off-season 'maybe I'll be back/maybe I'll retire' dramas. I remember his triumphant game on the heels of his father's death. I remember countless victories, far fewer defeats, and endless confidence that  we'd do it all again next year.

We'll miss you Brett. Thanks for everything.

Not on AOL/AIM? Click here to comment

Monday, March 3, 2008

Happy Birthday Katie

Today is my sister Katie's [redacted] Birthday, and while she may have cancelled her party due to illness, the Slapinions household wishes her a happy and productive year! Love you!


Tags:

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Beowulf and 30 Days of Night

It was pretty hard to lay hands on a rental copy of 30 Days of Night in this town yesterday. It was only on my second round of calling every Blockbuster on the south side that I came across a recently returned copy.

To my disappointment Lisa didn't want to sit down and watch it once she found out it was a vampire movie. Horror she likes; vampires and zombies not so much.

I really enjoyed the movie and I think the director was great at using the isolated and brutal Alaskan landscape as a secondary (but equally deadly) opponent. The story was strong for a genre film, even if the climax wasn't to my liking, and I disagree with critics who labeled this a 'gore' fest. Frankly, I think the blood and guts was kept to a bare minimum given the requirements of the story.

Plus this wasn't as much a vampire story as a zombie story disguised as a vampire film. A small group of survivors clings to life in an environment dominated by zombie/vampires . . .I have a slight fetish for films with that premise, and if for nothing else I'd recommend the film on that alone.

3 out of 4 stars.

I also rented Bewoulf in the past week.

 

I enjoyed it in the moment but in retrospect felt a little let down, like the old cliche about Chinese food: an hour later I was hungry again.

Visually it's grand, no question about that, even if that whole 'spooky-eyes' thing has yet to be fully worked out. And yeah, it's a little freaky to see cartoons talking and acting sexual - that's for the Internet people, not the movies! - but again, great visuals throughout the movie.

I don't agree with Roger Ebert that it was intended as satire. Nor do I think that Grendel was  a sympathetic character gone wild because of unjust banishment. I didn't sympathize with the monster, child-like mentality or not, and he WAS a freaking monster. He ATE people for pete's sake.

I just think that Zemeckis had no real love for the material (on the DVD he admits not liking the source material). Top it off with some alterations of the poem's plot by screenwriter Neil Gaiman and I started to lose some interest in the film.

Look I love Gaiman's novels - American Gods was superb - but the man is a maverick. Why would you ask him to adapt the oldest existing epic in the English language is beyond me - you just knew in your bones that he HAD to mess around with the story; it's his nature.

I agree with making Beowulf's kingdom the same one he rescues from Grendel, as that did solidify the story for moviegoers, but the Angelina Jolie/bestiality thing? Yeah, uh, no.

And I will say this - Beowulf is a hero, a legitimate and unconquerable champion. To make him a 'flawed man' betrays more of the 21st century's sad mentality than it does the heart of the character.

2 of 4 stars.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

An example of how honesty has never been an issue in our marriage

I had my wife read a post I did yesterday (but have yet to post).

"It's good. Very well written today."

"Today? As opposed to what?"

"As opposed to some of the junk you pass off as posts"

Later I asked if she'd read the Leap Day post.

"Maybe"

"Maybe?"

"Yeah, I think so. It was that boring one wasn't it?"

"What do you mean, 'boring'? Did you even read it?"

"Of course."

"What was it about?"

"It was about . . [shrugs] I don't know. Something about snow and the car. And you wrote 2009, not 2008. See, I told you I read it! Ha!"

{note: I did indeed write 2009, and later edited it out}

"So what did you think about the phone call?"

"What phone call?"

''You didn't even read it to the end??!"

"I  . . . mighthavestoppedhalfwaythrough. Look, you would NEVER read 30 posts a month if I had a blog. I bet you wouldn't even glance at more than three a year, would you?"

"Ah, that's not true. I've told you to get a blog for years."

"That's such a crock. You'd hate my blog. It'd be 'Danny did this' and 'Danny said that' and you'd spend all day trying to get me to edit out all the stupid things you do all the time".

Snort. "Bull. You don't have a blog because no one wants to read about making flannel frog pins and paper mache dolphins. You'd put people to sleep."

Laughs. "Uh, half of Blogger is about paper mache dolphins, thank you very much. And just for that, maybe I'm going to start a blog and make it all about those flannel frog pins. And you know what? I'm going to make you read every-single-word- aloud. Would you like that bunky? Wouldya?"

And finally, her complete email response to a whiny email of mine.

that was the main point, dont look between the lines for derogatory sh*t,  you know i love you, shut up.

Ah, true love lol

 

Not on AOL/AIM? Comment Here


Tags:

Friday, February 29, 2008

Happy Leap Year!

I hope everyone has had a happy and memorable Leap Day 2008.

It was kind of a mixed bag for me. Three more inches of snow overnight, making the glaciers in my alley oh, six miles deep. I got stuck and unstuck and stuck again, and bottomed out the car moving from one ice pack to another. It'll be a miracle if the cars don't need alignments and shocks by spring.

At work my day was hampered by the misery that is a Friday in Lent (please let my birthday not fall on such a day this year!), and the lousy meatless lunches that come with it.

I also engaged in a long and fruitless argument with a customer who refused to see facts that were as plain as day.

Believe me, few things are as enjoyable as explaining, time and again, in a myriad of different ways, that $65 times three purchases is  $195 EACH AND EVERY TIME. There is no 'trickery' involved, and no amount of math, new, old, verdic, algebraic, whatever, is going to change that fact.

On the other side of the scale we closed out the month significantly ahead of Feb of '07 (not even including today's totals) and ahead of Feb of '06 as well.. A hearty thank-you to all involved in making that happen.

I also had the pleasure of enjoying an evening at home minuse the wife and kids, although I've done nothing more exciting than complete my federal taxes.

* * *

I had a bit of a smile today too, albeit a heartless evil one.

 Midway through the day I took a call from a salesman who was pushing . .what was it? Oh yes, a new brand of drain cleaner. Obviously he wasn't the best man for the job or I'd remember the product without a four minute pause, but it was how truly AWFUL he was that made it special.

"Mr. S I'd like to thank you for returning the comment card showing interest in our product," he began.

Never heard of the company, certainly never wasted my time filling out postcards about Drano.

"and as a special thank-you I'd like to offer you a XY brand 4 inch pocket knife as my gift," he said.

Not sure how a pocketknife would inspire a purchase from someone in my industry, but, uh, sure.

Now you have to picture this next bit as if it was ripped clean out of a failed sitcom. You know the scene because you've seen it a hundred times: someone's kooky uncle or the Ashton Kutcher of the class gets a job as a telmarketer. Hilarity ensues. Cue laugh track.

"And I bet there's plenty of dark nights and back alleys in, uh .  .in Milwaukee where that blade is going to come in pret-tee handy, ha ha ha".

You should have seen my smile. I could hear the guy turning the pages of the script. I could hear him whispering to himself in panic when he forgot what city he'd called. And best of all, oh, best of all dear reader, the 'ha ha ha' was just that: a mechanical, forced, actual 'ha ha ha', devoid of even a child's efforts to imitate a real laugh.

I immediately decided to devote a  few minutes to the guy. There'd be no curt 'no thanks' from me today, nosirree.

[And again, I'm in a suit and tie industry. What is his company trying to say, that I go slumming in the Bowery on my off hours? And thanks for ridiculing my hometown. Did anyone think out this marketing angle, or did they come up with it over a bong one night?]

He went on with his pitch, and the turning of his notecards, and after awhile I began to discern a womans voice in the background. It was faint but oh, it was there, and I began to notice that it spoke the man's words just a moment before they rolled out of his mouth.

Dear Liza, the poor woman was training this man! How miserable was her Leap Day?

So he tries to get me to buy his stuff. "Send me a sample and I'll make a decision," I said, for no other reason than to let him off the hook without a real 'no'. Ah, but his trainer was having no part of it and I knew the spin before I heard it. I parried it quickly and she came back with yet another flanking attack (the woman was obviously a veteran salesperson)

Here is where pity began to overcome my amusement. The longer he and I - well, she and I - went 'round and round, the more he fell a step behind. Eventually I would hear her voice first, and only after she was finished speaking would he try and stumble through and remember what she said, his voice full of misery.

Enough was enough, and I disconnected after a polite 'no thank you'.

Now I'll probably never get that pocketknife.


Tags:

Lost: The Constant . . . Season 4, Episdode 5

If you weren't a fan of Lost before this episode, well, you're probably still not a fan now.

 

Not that it wasn’t a fine episode, but it wasn’t the best way to introduce the series to a new viewer, especially if the newbie had an aversion to science-fiction. Without question "The Constant" was the most Star Trek-yof any episode I've seen to date.

 

The events on the island are so secondary as to be extraneous, and largely act as a plot device for the off-shore action. So with your kind permission, I think we'll start on the freighter.

 

While en route to the ship Desmond experiences a dramatic out of body experience. For the rest of the episode his consciousness is bounced back and forth between 1996 and 2004; keep in mind that at no point is the ‘Desmond’ we know present except at the start and end of the show. From the moment the trouble starts his body is inhabited by the 1996 version of himself.

 

 

 

There are a dozen different time travel stories that have used a similar idea, so it’s certainly not very original: Somewhere in Time, Slaughterhouse Five, Quantum Leap, 12 Monkeys, etc. I think it was crafted well and did what it needed to do, but really, why bother? I have to assume, based almost soley on the note in Daniel’s journal at the end, that the time-travel issue will arise again, perhaps as a major plot point.

 

 

 

If it doesn’t, then the whole episode was really just filler.

 

Not that we didn’t learn some things. There is a legitimate time discrepancy between the island and the ‘world’. Daniel acknowledged it, Sayid mentioned they left at dusk for a 20 minute flight and arrived at midday, and there was of course the whole rocket experiment in a previous episode.

 

{anyone else find the Oxford bit a straight rip-off of the Back to The Future scenes where Marty convinces the 1955 Doc Brown he's legit?}

 

 

 

But how much of a variance is there? The freighter is shown to exist on Christmas Eve of 2004, yet the Losties on the island are somewhere near their 100th day (I forget the exact number) so they too are nearing Christmas. What gives? Is this just a continuity error or is the time variance nothing more than a perception issue, rather than a real time lag? If the latter, how the hell does that make sense?

 

Minkowski was kind of a wasted character, no? He’s introduced as the voice on the radio early in the season, presumably for no other reason than to validate Desmond’s experiences here, then drops dead. Whatever.

 

 

 

Why would ‘Ben’s man’ on the boat both release the hostages and destroy the radio room? With Sayid and Desmond looking for a way off the island, wouldn’t it have made more sense to keep them locked up?

 

[Love Sayid’s ‘give me a minute’ when asked if he could repair the mangled radio room. And could someone please tell me where the heck Penny was on Christmas Eve? I get the whole dramatic endless ringing of the phone, but if you’ve been expecting a call on that date for 8 years wouldn’tyou take the dang phone with you wherever you went, even to the loo?]

 

 

 

Penny might have waited eight years for the call, but she’s seen him in the years between ’96-’04, at the very least at the track stadium, no?

Note that at the auction, when the log of the Black Rock was sold, they gave the sailing date as March 22nd 1845. Dynamite, of which there was plenty in her hold, wasn’t invented until 1866. 

Could a blatant error like that be intentional? And the seller was Tovard Hanso, presumably of the Hanso foundation, an (evil?) organization that’s popped up before in the Lost mythology.

 

Anyone else catch the Charles Dicken’s item up for sale after that? A pretty non-subtle nod to Desmond’s obsession, I thought. And note that Keamy, the guy on the freighter, states that they are in the Pacific, laying waste to some thought I saw online that they might be in the Indian Ocean.

 

One thing that really irked me throughout the episode was the use of The Numbers. They seemed to be popping up everywhere, as if the writers were beating us over the head with them. Desmond told Daniel to set the machine for 2.342. The auction lot was number 2342. Penny’s address was 423, etc. I’m sure were more that I’m forgetting,(Or at least I hope so, lest this be a b.s. paragraph) 

 

In the end, I loved the Penelope-Desmond phone call that served as the climax of the episode. At it’s heart Lost is about two things: mystery, and love, albeit not very trouble-free love.

 

Doubt the last part? Think I’m a melodramatic fool?  Ok then – love of family (Kate/her Mom – Jack/His Dad – Charlie/his brother – Locke/his Dad - Walt/Michael - Shannon/Boone). Romantic love (Sayid/Shannon – Kate/Jack/Sawyer – Sun/Jin – Desmond/Penny – Hurley and his crazy, now deceased gal).

 

So the ending was romantic, and sweet, and over the top in its foolish idealistic notion of love reunited, but you know what?

 

I had a wee bit of a tear in me eye watching it, so I’m not about to complain.

 

Not on AOL/AIM? Comment Here

 

 

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Another Smiley Update

Today's evaluation went MUCH better.

Bear in mind the majority of the results/opinons/beliefs of the psychologists were still not revealed to us, probably because of all the confusion they generated yesterday. We'll have to wait until the 5th for that.

But . . Smiley charmed the heck out of the women, just being as friendly and outgoing as he's ever been - and more than once they commented on how big of a smile he has.

They ran him through a whole battery of tests, many more than yesterday. On everything remotely mechanical or hands on he aced it. Break a toy into its component pieces and put it back together - check. Unscrew a bottle, remove the contents, replace them one by one - check. Stack and build blocks - check. Untie a knotted necklace, remove the beads, and then thread them back on - check (and without even being instructed; that seemed to impress them).

When he finished threading the beads he went up to one of the psychologistsm,put the necklace on her neck and tried to tie it on - priceless.

He also did surprisingly well in identyifing both colors and shapes, given the fact that he refuses to acknowledge those things whenever we've tried to teach him. In fact, we were floored he knew them at all.

He could also ID items and pictures and immediately associated a photo of an object with the real thing, like a door for example.

His attention span was much better, although they too noticed he was hyper-focused at times and distracted at others.

Again, they were loathe to tell us too much, but one of the women said that he was far and away too intelligent and advanced for her (very extremely disabled) program and that she would be recommending he be rejected.

That's great news.

The bad news is much shorter in length because we won't know much until the 5th.

Smiley's vocab is still limited to 11 words, and most of them chopped up vowel sounds rather than full English words.[dada, 'ocks (socks), kay (ok), 'all (ball), 'ore (more), mom/'om, bu-eyyye (bye), bu-oke (broke), and three more that slip my mind.)

He uses no two-word combinations, does not respond to or try to engage in singing, and showed no sign of developing language.

Yet again, more news to follow on the 5th, but I think the general consensus is that it's it's like a whole chunk of his ability to communicate verbally just fails to fire up, or isn't there at all.

From what they said it seems certain he will have intensive treatment of some type in the summer and will quite probably be in a special-ed program come the fall. They were quick to point out that it's not as bad as the stigma implies and that it isn't/wouldn't be a lifelong label, but something to be reviewed again every three years.

So, wait and see. More news to follow on the 5th.


Tags:

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Update on Smiley

This post involves the medical condition/academic evaluation of Smiley; if that doesn't interest you, kindly skip it. I hate reading about medical conditions just about as much as I hated writing this one,  so I'll understand.

A very confusing day regarding Smiley:

We had an in-home visit by a cognitive researcher, whatever that is, to determine how much his hearing problems have inhibited his learning. That was what I was told the visit was about, but in actuality it also seemed to judge his overall learning potential and intelligence.

Basically the lady showed up, plopped herself down on my living room rug and ran Smiley through a series of tests. He took to her quickly and seemed at ease. He did well at first but within a few minutes seemed to lose his way.  

According to the woman's vernacular he acted according to his 'own agenda'.

The results are confusing, with Lisa coming away with a more positive outlook than I did, and both of us drawing different conclusions from the same statements.

Overall he tested at average to slightly below average learning ability, although the researcher admitted his attention span played a role in that verdict. She termed his attention span very low but did not slap a label on it, having made clear that ADD is in her opinion 'very over diagnosed' in children. She admitted some of it could just be due to an 'off' day, and some could be because he has yet to be exposed to an organized classroom.

She said he was very behind on his speech and could not put two words together, whereas by his age he should (at a minimum) be putting 3 or 4 together.

She deemed him in need of medical/therapeutic 'intervention'. We asked if it was something that, left untreated, would have cleared up by itself so that he was 'normal' by YaYa's age.

"Oh, no," she said. "He needs some help"

Remember that Montessori school we were so happy he was accepted into? The researcher, although she has no say in it, said it was completely the wrong environment for him. If he bounces back enough to attend in the fall she recommended a different, more structured classroom setting.

Here's an odd thing: she told us to forget about toilet training. She said it went hand in hand with his speech development and that it would be taken care of by any educational program he was put in over the summer.

That was my interpretation: Lisa believes it to be more positive, pointing to the fact that even given his attention span today he ranked as 'average' or close to it and seemed to do well on many of the tests, esp. those involving building. She also points out that he was able to ID many items and colors and followed decently complicated directions.

"You're just upset that he isn't a Danny," Lisa said later. "But that isn't the end of the world. He'll be fine."

The speech pathologist was supposed to do her gig today too but rescheduled for tomorrow afternoon, which SUCKS, as I'd cleared today's schedule and had obligations Thursday.

Then, while on the road, Lisa called me. She was upset because a different cognitive researcher had called and said she would attend the speech evaluation tomorrow. Apparently woman #1 called her and recommended a second opinion based on some questionable 'test results'.

A whole lot of confusion and questions errupted. In response woman #1 called back and reitterated that she evaluates potential, whearas the second woman checks current ability.

Seems redundant, given I can't imagine they use different tests, but whatever. I'm begining to distrust the process in my conservative core; the 'welfare state' is rarely your ally.

But we'll see what the folks tomorrow say, and then what the big panel review on next Wednesday deems the best course of action.

Tags:

Monday, February 25, 2008

Help me make a list of Must Read Books

A few weeks ago I settled a lingering dispute with the library, shelling out $45 to pay for a book I (allegedly) returned damaged.

It’s great that my library card is clear, but it’s also a little sad how quickly my book addiction came roaring back. As I type this I have 5 or 6 library books in the entryway, another half dozen on the high chair, one on the floor of LuLu’s room, one beside me on the couch, four in the 1st floor bathroom, a pair in my attache case, and a few more in my bedroom.

For me it‘s like crack, but regrettably without the weight loss benefits.

On a serious note, the newfound library privileges have inspired me to set out on a quest of sorts.

I may have a bachelor’s degree and some post grad work, but I’m smart enough to know there are gaping holes in my literary knowledge.

I know next to nothing about classical Greek and Roman writing. Literature from outside the English-speaking world? Nada, save for the occasional South American novel. The ‘modern’ novel that the New York Times calls brilliant and the public ignores? Never touched the stuff.

I’d like to rectify that.

I aim to come up with a list of books - the occasional bit of nonfiction, but predominantly novels - that would give me (or some schmoe visiting from Mars) a solid and well-rounded idea of what literature exists, and a taste of its greatness.

I thought about choosing 100 books, but that can be lopped off in a year. 1000? Too many to be realistic. If the list settles around 500, give or take a dozen, I could read 20 of the books a year, thereby finishing it in a quarter century, and still have plenty of room to read whatever strikes my fancy.

Yeah, I'm gambling I can last another 25 years. Why not?

Ideally (and this may change) I’d like the list to be as follows. I‘ve included some examples of what I think each category is ‘aiming‘ for, although that doesn‘t guarantee the example will make the cut in the end:

I. ‘Classical’ works and literature to 1500 - Herodotus, Homer, Beowulf, Chaucer, Aesop, The Arabian Nights

II. 16th thru 18th Century - Shakespeare, Voltaire, Defoe, Jonathon Swift, Don Quixote

III. The 19th Century - take your pick here: Twain, Dickens, Austen, Shelley; a veritable‘all-star’ century of the Western novel

IV. The 20th Century to the Present - 25 years from now when this list is finished it will probably make more sense to divide the category into 20th and 21st century works, but here and now that seems like a stretch. I'd consider divying it up to pre-and post War books, or some other artificial division.  Hemingway, Steinbeck, Morrison, Heller, Vonnegut.

V: World Literature - I’m eager to sample some of the fine Japanese and Asian writers, and I understand Africa is producing some notable work. This category would include works across the centuries. As I am Polish by heritage I insist on placing Henryk Sienkiewicz on the list (I think he’d be in the running anyway) and the epic poem Pan Tadeusz.

* * *

Ah, here’s where it gets complicated. I’d like to flesh out these categories, but haven’t yet decided whether to fold the following into the five areas I’ve outlined or have them stand on their own.

A. Children’s Literature - The Cat in the Hat, The Wizard of Oz, Corduroy, The Little Engine that Could

B. Memoirs/Biographies: Please, no one boring. Ben Franklin, U.S. Grant, Boswell’s diaries.

C. History: Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War, works by Bruce Catton, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Albert Speer. This is my passion and could get long-winded.

D. Genre: I would ideally like to include, say, the top 25 books in the categories of: horror, mystery, Westerns, thrillers, and science-fiction and fantasy. Please bear in mind that on the printed page I detest nothing more than elves, dwarves, and fairies, which has always handicapped my reading of fantasy.

E. Religion - sure, the Bible, tho’ I’m not sure I’ll ever go cover to cover in one shot. But I’m thinking more along the lines of Pilgrim’s Progress, City of God (St. Augustine), the works of Aquinas, and even Luther’s thoughts.

F. Nonfiction (non History/biography) - A Brief History of Time, Silent Spring.

For assistance in compiling these books I’m turning to everyone I know, including (naturally) you, dear reader. I hope to have the list ‘finalized’, by April or May.

Some helpful words of advice: keep in mind that whenever a list like this is compiled it reflects, at least in part, the reader. I make no apologies for being a proud American male living in the year 2008; because of this I anticipate that the list will unabashedly lean towards Western literature. Without trying to offend anyone, I’malso not all that keen on reading some tract on Wicca or Scientology or an aggressively anti-male feminist rant.

Even so, I aim to have the list be rather inclusive.

I'm also unsure at the moment on how to approach which individual work of an author to include. Do I pick the 'best' of the bunch, or the book that made their reputation? I lean towards a vague, case by case approach.

To fabricate an oddly irrelevant example: if we were talking about books as if they were Patrick Swayze movies, I'd probably take Dirty Dancing over Ghost even tho' the latter is better, because Dancing is still a good film and synonoymous with Swayze.

On the other hand, discussing Al Pacino in the same light, I'd skip Scarface and go with Godfather or Dog Day Afternoon, despite Scarface meeting the Dancing requirement.

I'm an odd guy sometimes.

Back to cold reality: If you need a place to start, check out The New Lifetime Reading Plan by Fadiman and Major, 1001 Books to Read Before You Die (multiple authors), and the 501 Must Read Books.

So mull it over. Scratch a few titles on a napkin when the mood strikes you, think about it on the john, etc.

Soon enough I’ll post an entry about one of the areas I mention above and we’ll debate it in detail.

See you then.

 

Not on AOL/AIM? Comment Here