Thursday, December 10, 2009

Something When We Do Nothing: Essays On Smoking And How It Destroys, 1


When I was seventeen, I smoked my first cigarette, handed to me by a cute girl after I told her "Sure, I smoke."

It came about because a girl brought out cigarettes, and because I was stupid, and because tobacco existed.

That was not the first time cigarettes came into my life, and it won't be the last time. It was just the most direct time and it sprung into my head the other day as I watched my mother's head droop down, pulling her oxygen tube forward and causing her to lean into the pole that held up her feeding tube. She clutched towards the pole with one hand.

Her other hand held tightly onto the unfiltered Camel cigarette, one of the hundreds of thousands of cigarettes that she has smoked over her lifetime, one of the increasingly diminutive number she will smoke before she dies.

My mother has lung cancer. She was diagnosed in April of this year. Seven months later, she has lived longer than I initially thought she would when I first visited her in the hospital.

That is, if what she is doing now can properly be called living.

Ralph Waldo Emerson said this about smoking: "The believing we do something when we do nothing is the first illusion of tobacco." He may have been right about that being the first illusion, but it is not the only illusion smokers have. Smokers, and those who tolerate smoking around them or by others, have illusion upon illusion upon illusion: they believe (as I did) that smoking makes them more creative. They believe (as I did) that smoking calms them down, and they believe at the same time that smoking perks them up. They believe that smoking does not interfere with their body's ability to go on breathing and thinking and living. They believe that their teeth are not hideously yellowed, that their fingertips are not shriveled and stained and hardened by the gripping and pressure on the lighter and innumerable small burns presented by cigarettes. They believe the shortness of breath as they walk or sit or talk is from a cold, or the humidity, or anything but the slow, steady, constriction of the tiny pouches of air in their lungs.

They believe all that in spite of and in the face of all evidence to the contrary.


It is possible to go on believing those things, possible to go on believing them until you are standing in your mother's living room, looking at the 40-year-old Nativity scene set up recently for Christmas, and you turn around to tell your mother a memory about that Nativity set, and, upon turning around, realize that every bone in your mother's shoulders are visible, and not just every bone but the tumors that are growing in her, as well. At that moment, as you look at her and see a pale skeleton of the woman who raised you (almost always with a cigarette nearby her), as her eyes droop and her hands flutter and she tries to stay awake and look at you, at that moment you stop believing those things.


You say to her: "You did a good job raising us, Mom," saying that instead of what you were going to say, because you realize that time is short and you want her to hear that more than you want her to hear the memory of the Nativity scene.

You stop believing those things about smoking and instead you curse the fact that cigarettes were ever invented.

And then you gently take your mother's hand, which is shaking slightly, and you help her tip the ash off of her cigarette and ask her if she needs anything else before you leave.

That cigarette, the last one my mom smoked while I was there visiting on Monday n
ight (but almost certainly not her last one of the night or her life), hung in my mind as I drove the long ride home in the cold night. That cigarette, which I so easily was able to take and flick the ashes off of and hand back to her, using movements remembered and familiar from my own seventeen years of smoking, that cigarette is one of the few specific cigarettes I can remember in my life, and I imagine I will remember it for the remainder of my life, for as long as I can remember things. That cigarette, its cursed poisonous smoke curling up from it, the glowing embers of Hell on the end of it, will live in my memory alongside the other specific times I can remember smoking or quitting smoking, a series of tainted poisoned images that clutter up my mind and my lungs and throat still, cigarettes and smoking and disease and death crowding into pictures and memories that I have, fluttering throughout my life, a life that is surely shortened just as my mom's has been.

That cigarette is still in my mind three days later. It is the image I have of my Mom from my Monday visit to her, and it saddens me to think that it is the image of one of the visits I will have with my Mom, that what I will remember from our Monday night together is that moment when I helped her avoid burning her hand, or her chair, or her carpet, taking the cigarette from her and then giving it back to her, letting her shorten her life a little more still now because what does it matter? They have already killed her, those cigarettes, the latest victim in the long line of casualties set down by the quest for profits, the desire to be cool, the belief that there is something of freedom in the act of killing onself slowly by deliberately inhaling burning material.

As that cigarette haunted my mind, as I cleared my throat this morning and felt the remnants of my own years of smoking, as I struggled to remain upbeat in the face of my Mom's impending death, I also fought to make sense of it all, to put it into perspective, and decided that the way I could do that is the same way I make sense of everything: by telling it to someone else. By sharing it. By telling about the cigarettes and the smoking that I have seen and done and battled in my life, by sharing from time to time memories and thoughts on the havoc that smoking has wrought on my life, the effects being most direct recently but never having been too distant from my life.

The harm caused to me by smoking -- by others' smoking and by my own smoking -- and the harm that has been caused to others around me by those same things, has always been present. I just tried to ignore it, for too long I tried to ignore it and glossed over it.

But on Monday night, I could not ignore it any longer. When I turned around and saw my mom fading there, I could no longer internalize all of that.

That is how this new series of essays began to be formed in my mind. As I drove home that night, as I thought over the past few days, as I continued to mull over these things, I determined to write about them, and I will. These things happened because I, and others, were stupid, and because tobacco existed. Now, I'm going to talk about them.

I'll still be the same me, in between times when I write about this. I'll still make the same dumb jokes and tell the same boring stories over and over, I'll still wax philosophical about things that don't deserve it and still make outrageous claims that I cannot possibly back up (and then I'll back them up.) For all of us, life goes on until it doesn't. Because of that truism, it's important to not wallow in sorrow and guilt and recrimination and sadness.

But sorrow and guilt and recrimination and sadness deserve their days, too. It is the bitter that allows sweet to exist, and the knowledge of sad things makes the laughter at funny things all the more heartfelt. So I will laugh and joke again. Just not today: My mother is dying.

I bet nobody in Hawaii sat for two hours in traffic this morning. (3 Good Things From 12/9/09)

I have only rarely needed my 3 Good Things more than today, after I spent 2 hours (yes, 120 minutes) driving the seven miles to work. There were no accidents, no bad roads... just a lot of people who are apparently completely unfamiliar with this thing we call "snow" and this other thing we call "driving like someone who has more than one functioning brain cell."


Whoo... Okay, my 3 Good Things...



1. This comic from XKCD:




I would watch that movie. Seriously. Plus, it's nice to know I'm not the only person who sits around thinking up seemingly-ridiculous-but-in-reality-quite-good movie ideas.

2. The "Penguin Fudge" my Uncle Dick sent me. He's not really my uncle, he's my dad's uncle, but it sounds silly to call him "Great Uncle Dick" or "Second Cousin-Uncle Dick" or whatever his relationship is. Uncle Dick sends really great pr
esents, and yesterday's was really great-er: A foot-long, eight-inch-wide block of fudge shaped like a penguin. I envision needing to work out a lot more than I was originally planning to this weekend.

3. This picture:


That's Mr F on the left and pantless Mr Bunches on the right, sleeping last night at 10 p.m. when I went in to check on them. They each have their own bed, but you wouldn't know it.

Bonus Good Thing: The picture below was the only good thing from my ride in this morning: While sitting on John Nolen Drive in Madison (for 47 minutes) I snapped this photo using my cell phone:






You have to click on the picture to get the full effect, but that's Lake Monona, not yet frozen, with ducks swimming around and the mist and blowing snow covering the view of Madison across the lake.

I hope they don't recall the Christmas fudge Uncle Dick sent me; it looks good!

Did you get lost in the news about whether or not those sad mechanical hamsters were dangerous or not? Wondering whether the presents under the tree will explode before the kids open them? Not sure if the reason your car window isn't working is your fault or the manufacturers?

If any of these apply to you, check out the "Product Recall Updates" at Accidents.com. Accidents.com is your number one source of information and referrals for product recalls, news about accidents, legal referrals, and everything else related to helping you get compensation for the problems others cause you.

I like the site because I can find out quickly what's going on with the things I buy or want to buy -- like the hooded sweatshirt recall for kids' clothing. I don't want the Babies! to accidentally strangle because I bought them a cute shirt, and with the site I can keep up on what's safe and what's not for the kids and the family.

But you may want to look into getting a lawyer or information about your accident, ranging from slip-and-falls to car accidents. They'll help you evaluate your accidents, refer you to chiropractors, and otherwise serve as a gateway for the information you need -- all done confidentially and quickly.

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Droid! Droid! DroidDroidDroidDroidDroidDroidDroidDroidDroid! (Yes, I'm a 3rd grader.) ( [Un]Cool Things I Never Learned In School)


You can't say Droid.

That's the uncool thing I learned recently, when I read some fine print in an ad for that new phone, which, because of trademark laws, should be called "The Phone Who Must Not Be Named," but calling it that might get me in trouble with the World's Most Unnecessarily Litigious Author.

So I don't know what to call the phone, but I know that I can't call it a Droid because George Lucas copyrighted the word "Droid."

That's what the fine print in those Droid ads says:
So everytime someone says droid they have to pay George Lucas, apparently.

I can't even believe they were able to trademark it, since as I understood it, droid was short for android, and I didn't think that you can trademark a part of a word.

But apparently you can, since the US Patent and Trademark Office ( somewhat of an authority, I guess... ) says:

A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.

"Droid," I guess, can be trademarked in reference to the phone, or other goods, maybe -- but it wasn't, not until recently. Lucas didn't try to register "droid" for the phone until October 9, 2009, so the Droid trademark for the phone wasn't his until about two months ago.

That may not be any help if you want to make, say, a droid car, because prior to his adventures in phonery, Lucas had registered Droid as a trademark for a computer game, an entertainment news service, action figures and other toys, general housewares including pudding molds [that one's been abandoned, so if you want to make your own IG-88 pudding mold, you probably can][<<<Note: Not actual legal advice!], going back as far as 1979.

Then again, maybe you can make Droid Popcorn: Lucas wasn't the first, it seems, to try to trademark droid, anyway and wasn't the only one to ever get a trademark for it.

There was a trademark application for a droid tool that would be a:

Hand-operated, multi-function pocket tool comprising hex keys, box wrenches, spoke wrenches, socket wrenches, wheel dishing tools, spanners, knives, forks, scissors, pliers, magnifying glasses, bottle openers, can openers, nail files, tweezers, reamers, tire levers, wood saws, axes, hatches, wrenches, hammers, locking wrenches, and adjustable wrenches, hand tool for bicycles, and chain tool.

Which is now a thing I want. That trademark was filed in 2005 and abandoned in 2006.

Droid
is also a registered trademark for a chest-protector-with-neck-brace, luggage (but that one's been abandoned) and a record partnership.

There's also an Anne Droid Surveillance System trademark which has also been abandoned, so if you were going to write a series of books about a sexy robotic detective whose goal is not just to solve mysteries but also to get robots to have equal rights with humans so that she can marry her human partner, the name Anne Droid is likely available. [<<<Note: Not actual legal advice, and also my idea.]

All that droid-searching got me thinking about registering other trademarks for parts of words so that I could get rich the American way: Suing someone for taking my ideas. My first thought was this: what about, say, "Bot" for robot?

Alas, it's already registered for "flavored waters." (Bot flavored waters? I'm no marketing genius [Note: Yes, I am] but that doesn't sound very good at all: "Here's some water flavored like half a robot. And not even the good, first half.")

Alarmingly, someone also registered a trademark for Skybot, which is a little too close to Skynet for my peace of mind. They say that one's abandoned, but I'm sure it's just a ruse and I'm going to have to finish up my underground hideout sooner rather than later.

Then, as is also the American way, I got bored and gave up.

So that's what I learned today, and what I never learned in school even though I was in school in 1979: You can trademark part of a word. And also: You can't say Droid without sending George Lucas money.

Well, I'm not caving in to his tyranny. I'm going to fight this. I'm going to name my next kid "Droid."

Take that, George Lucas!

School: 0
Fine Print In Advertisements: 1
.

You'll have to read all the way to the end to see if you won the contest... no fair skipping ahead! (3 Good Things From 12/8/09)

Did you make it in to work today? I did, and I'm the only one here, so far. Which makes me Boss for the day. I declare raises and pizzas for everyone that's here!

If you
didn't make it in to work because of snow, and because you decided to follow the warnings to stay home if your job is "nonessential", ask yourself this: Do you really want to (a) use up a perfectly good day off being snowed in, and (b) declare that the job you do is nonessential?

Now you know why I'm here. Plus, that picture to the right is a picture from my actual drive in this morning. 12 inches of snow, no plows around, and 30 mile per hour winds... and it was the best drive in I've had in all of 2009.

Now, on to the real news: the 3 Good Things from yesterday:

1. I did a bang-up job at my seminar presentation, if I say so myself. And I do say so myself, but also a couple of people came up afterwards and said they really enjoyed it, which is really saying something, considering that my presentation was on the topics of "hidden assets and foreclosures in divorce proceedings."

2. Two of the Christmas presents I ordered for Sweetie were delivered. For security reasons, I can't discuss too many details of the presents I've tried and tried to order for her for Christmas. But for now, I can say that I first ordered them, then was told I couldn't get them. Then I ordered them again, and was told that again, and I've finally ordered them and two of the three came. Which is good, because I don't want to go out Christmas shopping again. I want my sole Christmas duties from here on out to be "dreading putting up the tree," "putting up the tree," "complaining about taking down the tree," and "eating fruitcake."

3. The contest winners have been picked! All you commenters got an entry in the Magic USPS Coffee Mug (Which I Don't Know How I Got, And Which Sits On My Desk Unused So Don't Worry, Your Entries Weren't Coffee-Tainted) (that's the mug's official name:)


And then I drew out the two winners:

Winner of the subscription to one of the three magazines: is "Petri Dish" reformed LLC Cool J fan and author of Love Fears A Lover, one of the great blogs around. Petri, you get your choice of a subscription to Conceit, The Bracelet Charm, or Amulet. Email me at "thetroublewithroy[at]yahoo.com" and let me know which one you want and the address to send it to.

Winner of a copy of my book, Eclipse: Stanley Goodspeed, whose post about the clipboard man still makes me laugh every single time I think of it. Stanley writes The Buffoon Blog and it's awesome, too. Stanley, email me at that address and let me know where to send your copy of Eclipse.

If you didn't win, don't despair -- look to your left and see what you can do for the next time.

I doubt there are very many experts on that subject, worldwide.

The snow is falling, the calendar reads December... and that leads everyone to think about ...

The Superbowl! Or, at least, those of us who never really stop thinking about the Superbowl are now thinking about it, still, or more. And we're looking for news about the Superbowl, for stories about the Superbowl, for predictions on who will be in the Superbowl, for the halftime show. Hype, of any sort.

I've found just the place: Article Alley's collection of Superbowl articles.

Article Alley is a collection of articles from the web that are sent in by the authors, and are readable and copyable for free - you can post and repost any article on Article Alley into your website (provided you attribute it) and you can write your own articles (or blog posts... hmmm... ) and post them there to promote and share your writing or your website.

Which is all great, but the best for me was finding those Superbowl articles, because it lets me begin the hype and have something to talk with The Boy about.

There's tons of other articles on there, too, from blog posts to computer, dating, legal topics, pets, pay-per-click sites, and more. I'd be willing to bet that if you can think of it, there's an article for it. And if there's not an article for the topic you're thinking about, you can just write and submit one yourself, for free, making you the expert on, say, Armadillo Mating Habits.

I don't know why I thought of that. Hmmmm.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Aristotle's Cookies. (3 Good Things From 12/7/09)

Today's the last day to comment and be entered to win a prize! Leave your comments by midnight tonight. Winners to be announced tomorrow or sometime.

It's late in the day to post this, but here are the 3 Good Things that have helped me not totally lose it when it turns out that yet again, people who have lived in Wisconsin all their lives turn out to have forgotten how to drive on snow, so that I'm snarled up in traffic even though we've gotten only about 1/2" of snow and it's really nothing to worry about... now I'm getting mad again.
Deep breath!

1. I made it to my seminar in time to grab extra cookies yesterday. I had an afternoon seminar -- a comedy seminar about legal ethics that was short on comedy (and short on legal ethics) but long on cookies when I got there. I grabbed three and brought home one for Sweetie and one for The Boy.

And, yes, I have considered the juxtaposition of my grabbing extra cookies while attending a seminar on ethics, but I took ethics in law school and college, too, so I'm pretty familiar with the rules of ethics, and I can say with confidence that Aristotle would have done exactly the same thing.

2. I got low-fived by my nephew. While visiting my mom last night, I ran into my 3-year-old nephew. I got him to give me five, then on the side, then way up high. I then held out my hand and said Down low, but he pulled his hand away and said Too slow! I thought I had until kids were four to be outsmarted.

3. Mr Bunches and Mr F team-hugged me. When I finally got home, around 10 p.m., the Babies! were still awake (of course), and I went in to sit with them. Mr Bunches jumped up onto my lap and hugged me, and Mr F then came up behind me and hugged me from behind. There's no better way to end your day than wrapped in 3-year-olds.

One Percenters, Day Five: Don't tell me we don't have the money for health care.

First off, HOORAY for Harry Reid, and John Fund, you're an idiot, and a disingenuous liar.

Now, on to the substance here.

As I mentioned the other day in the context of talking about Giovanni Ribisi (that's how my mind works), the estimated cost of the current, pretty good health care plan pending before Congress is $1.055 trillion.

I hear over and over how there's no way we could ever pay for that, and how we'll be bankrupting our kids or our kids' kids or even their kids' kids' kids, or something. It'll be financial Apocalypse, with no Rapture to lift up those who had jobs before the wave of payment decimated small businesses.

(That speech, verbatim, courtesy of the deranged ramblings of Republican Mitch McConnell. Okay, maybe not verbatim, but I'm pretty sure he said something like it.)

The problem with that argument is that it's false. Patently, blatantly, whatever -ntly modifier you want to put in front of it, it's false, and those who make it (and those who believe it) are dumb.

The United States is the richest country, by far, in the world, and can easily afford $1.055 trillion. Not only could we come up with 10% of that money right now simply by tapping the 10 richest people in our country (and leaving them fine, as I pointed out in that same article) but we could come up with it a variety of other entirely painless ways.

Take movies. We all love movies, right? I know I do, and I go to them all the time. So does every other American, as far as I can tell, because movies are doing just fine, even in a recession and even in the face of a looming InsuranceApocalypse.

Last week, the top 10 movies raked in grosses (combined) of $86.16 million dollars. )$86,160,000) (And it wasn't even a very good batch of movies.) The average US movie ticket prices (as of 2008) were $7.18. Which means, using the average price applied to last week's gross, there were 12,000,000 tickets sold last week alone. (A lot of them, apparently, to teenage girls seeing Twilight 2: Vampire Boogaloo a fifteenth time.)

Put a tax of $1 on each movie ticket -- increasing the price marginally -- and you'd raise $12,000,000 in a single week. Do that for the whole of 2009, when the top 10 films so far have grossed $2,535,000,000 (or about 353,064,066 tickets) and you'd have raised $353,064,066 towards health care reform in a single year.

$353,000,000 is about 1/3 of the trillion needed to cover health care reform -- and it could have been raised without even hurting anyone; you'd go to a movie and pay a buck extra to watch Robert Pattinson glower or Kevin the Bird run.

Would that kill businesses? I doubt it. I doubt anyone would even notice it. Except for the people who could then afford to go see a doctor and go on living.

Health care reform can be paid for easily, and painlessly, and I'll continue pointing that out. That's why I came up with the concept of One Percenters: people who care enough about helping others out that they're willing to pay an amount equal to 1% of their gross income to provide universal health care. If you make $50,000 a year, that's $1.37 per day you'd pay to help someone else get health care.

So don't tell me we can't afford to reform health care. That's a ridiculous lie. We can pay for it as easily as we go to the movies and watch the latest Sandra Bullock crummy movie.

The Senate is still debating health care reform, and the House will then have to consider whatever the Senate emits as its bill. So keep the pressure on politicians to do something. Today's two are:

"Senator" Evan Bayh, who recently suggested that he'd vote for the bill before voting against it. "Senator" Evan voted to let debate continue, while being coy about whether he liked the bill. Bayh has taken in over $1,000,000 in contributions from insurance companies and health interests, so I think we all know who will be purchasing his vote in the long run -- but you can still try to get Bayh to vote in favor of protecting little kids by providing them insurance; call him at (202) 224-5623 and tell him that if America can afford to spend $15,000,000 on werewolves, we can spend money on kidney transplants for kids. Or click here to contact him through his website.



"Congressman" Jared Polis: Jared represents a district in Colorado. He recently wrote that "Health care reform is the single most important step we can take to rebuild our economy." I'm not sure what he means by that, but it seems a step in the right direction, right? But then he said this:

"I also made the difficult decision to vote against the bill" for health care reform in the House. Jared painted that as a courageous stand against health care costs; I say it wasn't so much courage as the $30,000 in campaign contributions from health concerns that he's already collected in his young career. Jared's only been in office since 2008, which means he's raising money from health concerns at a rate of about $41 per day.

(Jared also wanted to have it both ways; he voted against the bill in committee, then voted for the bill on the House floor. Congressmen, it seems, like to be both for and against things.)

Call Jared at 202-225-2161, or click here to go to his website and congratulate him on voting the right way, once, and remind him that the work isn't done: Make sure that his $41 a day in campaign contributions doesn't make him against things again.

My input into household finances: "There's always room in the budget for potato chips."

What's your budgeting system for your money? Mine is to give it all to Sweetie and then tell her when I'm running out of gas or need to download some songs, and hope she gives me some money back.

That may not work for everybody, so if you're someone who has a more complicated life than mine, or if you can't get Sweetie to handle your money for you (she'd probably be willing to do so), you might want to look into the envelope budgeting software provided by NeoBudget.

NeoBudget will help you, the ordinary Joe or Joe-ette, budget your money without all the complex shenaniganry of those other programs out there. You want a simple budget, and NeoBudget will do that for you, helping you manage your money and get the most out of your paycheck. Their program will not only show you how you're spending now, but will help you plan for the future and adjust spending and saving accordingly -- and it's available for a free trial right now. So click on over there and give it a shot, because I'm pretty sure Sweetie is busy today and can't take your call.

Monday, December 07, 2009

1001 Ways To Tune Up The World, Number Fifty-Two

52. Make cups and glasses wider on the bottom. (All cups and glasses.)

Last night, I poured Mr F a glass of milk and was about to put the cap back on the carton of milk (which really isn't a carton anymore, it's a jug, but that's besides the point) and my hand nicked the edge of Mr F's glass with just enough force to send the glass (which was an ordinary cup in that it had a smaller base than top) falling over, spilling the milk and making me restart the whole process and have to move Sweetie's little Smore-man candy dish and clean under there.

Some travel mugs have larger bases than tops. But no other cups do, so far as I have seen in my life, and I have seen pretty far in my life.

Why? Why aren't coffee cups, milk cups, all cups and glasses larger at the bottom to prevent unnecessary spills (there's no point trying to prevent those necessary spills, right?) Is it aesthetics? If so, shouldn't people like me (i.e., smart people who are also clumsy) have a choice as to which we think looks better, a small-on-the-bottom glass next to a puddle of grape soda, or a larger-on-the-bottom glass we're not afraid to set next to our computer?

Is it a cost thing? Because I'd pay more to avoid dumping liquids all over my life.


Still 2 days left in the contest: Comment on this post! You could win a book or magazine subscription (details here) and you'll be making me happy (details on that here.)

Prior entries:



























13. Ban driving any kind of automobile, motorcycle or other personal vehicle within 1-2 miles of downtown in any city with a population of more than 100,000.

12. Abolish gym class; instead, teach kids to play musical instruments.


11. Change copyright laws to allow anyone to use anyone else's creative work provided that the copier pay 60% of the profit to the originator and that the copier not cast the original work in a negative light.

10. Have more sidewalk cafes and outdoor seating.

9. When you have to give someone a gift, ask them what they want, and then get that thing for them.

8. Never interrupt or finish someone's jokes.

7. Periodically, give up something you like for at least a month.

6. Switch to "E-money."

5. Have each person assigned one phone number, and then add an extension for the various phones and faxes that person might be reached at.

4. Abolish Mondays and Tuesdays.

3. Don't listen to interviews with athletes or comedians.

2. Have "personal cashiers" at the grocery store.

1. Don't earn more than $200,000 per year.

Shoveling snow's not so bad if your driveway is small and you're not concerned with the quality of your work. (3 Good Things From 12/4-12/6)


Don't forget to comment this post! Today and tomorrow are it for the contest: Comment and win a magazine subscription or book! You can enter more than once. Details here.


It snowed a little more last night, and I'm just back in from the first pre-work/pre-'puting snow shoveling of the 09/10 winter. So pardon me if I'm a little sweaty. Here's my 3 Good Things from the weekend:

1. I got our Christmas shopping finished! Almost! Well, nearly...okay,
I did pretty good and got almost everything we needed in just four-and-a-half short hours of driving around with the Babies! and eating hash browns for breakfast and pizza for lunch and playing at the playground, and once, chasing a staticky-haired Mr Bunches through Walmart while Mr F, riding in the cart, laughed. All things considered, we did pretty well, and I have no idea how that trail of crackers in the Apple Store got there.

2. Sweetie did the reading at church extremely well.
Sweetie volunteers to do the readings at church from time to time, and I love watching her do it because she does it with emotion and really puts effort into it. She did the one yesterday and I liked it.

3. This version of Amazing Grace:



I'm not sure why I like it so much, but I do. It was nice to listen to while I shoveled this morning.

Greg Shenkman offers tips to accessorize your guitar

This is a sponsored guest post written by Greg Shenkman on behalf of Greg Shenkman. Post powered by Sponzai.


If you are looking to accessorize your guitar this holiday season, Greg Shenkman has a few suggestions. This noted guitar aficionado has been writing about his experiences as a guitar player and has offered many tips, suggestions and personal experiences relating to the world of guitar playing. Take his recent review of the Luthier’s Choice triple pack from Gibson, for example. With real world knowledge of the products and experiences, these tips and tricks can be extremely helpful.


The Luthier’s Choice triple pack from Gibson is a convenient grouping of products that includes a four ounce bottle of high-gloss polish, a four ounce bottle of string cleaner and lubricant, and a four ounce bottle of fret board conditioner. This package of essential guitar merchandise has everything you need to maintain your guitar. The string cleaner is especially advantageous, but not everyone has had the chance to use it. This is why Greg Shenkman introduced the product to his readers recently.


If you have never used string cleaner for your guitar before, Greg Shenkman makes a good case for trying it. The guitar player wrote that he had never tried it before buying this triple pack; he would simply replace his strings when they appeared dull. But this takes time to go to the store and to do the restringing once you get them home, and money to buy the strings every time. With the string cleaner in this Luthier’s Choice triple pack from Gibson, however, it is possible to restore the original brilliance of the strings. It removes dirt and other buildup so strings can last much longer. And with the lubricant and fret board conditioner, you have everything you need to keep your guitar in good working order.


Whether you have a legendary guitar like the Gibson Les Paul Studio Plus or a simple startup guitar like the Fender Squire, it pays to take care of it. Having good advice such as these tips and tricks from Greg Shenkman on the best products to buy can make a world of difference.


Sunday, December 06, 2009

The Saints Ain't Gonna Win The Super Bowl. (Nonsportsmanlike Conduct!)

Don't forget to comment this post! Three days left in the contest: Comment and win a magazine subscription or book! You can enter more than once. Details here.

Last week, I mentioned how sports writers and talkers don't understand stats at all.

This week, I go stats-heavy in what is a pretty in-depth look at how bad the Saints really are. So to lighten that up a bit, I'll present a fun lead-in:

Sometimes things are not exactly what they seem. Sometimes you'll think a thing is one kind of thing, and it's another kind of thing, exactly. Take three examples: Julia Roberts, The New Orleans Saints, and this picture:



None of those three things are what they actually seem to be.

That picture, for example, isn't exactly what it seems to be. It seems to be Mr F, playing at the mall playground with a kid who's being his friend. That's what I captioned it when I texted that to Sweetie yesterday, trying to use up some of the 250 text- and picture-messages I get each month on my phone for five bucks. (Total so far, on Day 6 of December: 17.)

But shortly after that picture was taken, that little boy on the right -- Mr F's new friend -- "borrowed" Mr F's toy (the toy is a snowman with a fishing pole sitting atop a plastic tube full of gum, which is not the most common image of Christmas, but Mr F liked it.) Mr F actually let the kid borrow it, but then the kid walked away with the toy, which upset Mr F, who didn't know he was giving it up. So I tried to talk to the kid, who's obviously-negligent parents were nowhere around. I said to the kid "Could he have his toy back, because he doesn't really understand about sharing." Mr F, meanwhile, hovered nervously near me. The kid tried to walk away again, and so I tapped him on the shoulder in a polite, and non-pedophiley way, and said again "Would you mind giving him his toy back?" As I did that, and the kid looked at me, Mr F grabbed the toy and ran, so to the rest of the world, it probably looked as though I had just cooperated with Mr F in stealing that toy.

Things are not what they seem.

Things like Julia Roberts, who I had always imagined to be a pretty nice person, overall. She had that smile, after all, and that laugh, and seemed to be kind of likeable even after she spite-married that cameraman and gave birth to some spite-kids and more or less stopped acting, so far as I know. Even then, I thought Julia Roberts was a pretty nice person, basing that assumption almost entirely on her character from Pretty Woman.

But then, yesterday, I read an article in Madison's Isthmus newspaper about movies filmed in Madison, and one of those movies was I Love Trouble, which starred Julia Roberts. I read then that she stayed near Middleton, Wisconsin (geographically, Middleton sits like a hat tilted jauntily back on the head of Madison) during the filming. Then I read this:

Julia Roberts stayed in a private home near Middleton during the three-and-a-half-week local shoot for I Love Trouble. (The owners moved out to make room for her, and the house was furnished for her needs.)

(Source.) The house was furnished for her needs? As opposed to, say, for the needs of the presumably-normal people who lived there before?

What you -- or at least I-- could read into that sentence is this: Julia Roberts did not say in a hotel suite or even a regular rental house. She kicked a family out of their own house during her stay in Madison, Wisconsin. That means that she had to pay a whole lot more money to do that, more money than it would have cost to have rented a suite or rental house, because who's going to move out of their house temporarily for low-rent payments? Then, Julia Roberts had the house furnished "for her needs." So she bought, or rented, furnishings for her temporary stay in that house.

Because Julia Roberts can not stay in a house without a chair specially designed for her needs. What, does she have a tail?

I don't know what Julia Roberts had brought in, or moved out, or redesigned, or feng-shuied. I just know that whatever she did, and whatever she spent, it was a horrible waste of money and yet another shameful, degrading display of wealth that for some reason Americans keep putting up with.

I no longer think Julia Roberts is a nice person; I now think she's a selfish pig and we're better off without her making any movies.

Things are not what they seem.

Those two things: Mr F's toy getting stolen, and us stealing it back, and Julie Roberts being a horrible human being, lead into my thinking about the New Orleans Saints today.

I'm excited about the New Orleans Saints being 11-0. I want them and the Indianapolis Colts to both go 16-0, and to meet, undefeated, in the Super Bowl, so that we can have the greatest game ever played, and also so that the sole remaining accomplishment of the Belicheat-Patriots-Asterisk era will be erased; once two teams go 16-0 in the regular season, the Patriots* won't even have that as a claim to fame anymore and we all will finally be done with nonsense about what a genius Belicheat is.

All of us, that is, except ESPN's Mike Greenberg, who is apparently applying for the job of Belicheat Sycophant; Greenberg spent Tuesday morning on the radio suggesting that it was all a part of Belicheat's geniusy master plan to lose to the Saints last Monday night, claiming that it "set up" the Patriots* perfectly for the playoffs while avoiding the limelight and scrutiny that comes with ... you know, winning.


The problem is, the Saints aren't going to go undefeated. And they're not going to make the Super Bowl, either. I'm sorry, New Orleans fans, but that's the way it is, and here's why:

The Saints are not nearly as good as you think they are. Things are not what they seem, and the Saints seem to be an 11-0 team. But they're not. They're not really an 11-0 team, not the kind of "11-0 team" with a legitimate shot at getting to the Super Bowl.

The Saints' eleven wins this year have come against Detroit, Philadelphia, Buffalo, the New York Jets and New York Giants, the Dolphins, Falcons, Panthers and Rams, the Buccaneers and the Patriots*.

Of those teams, only four teams (the Patriots*, Giants, Eagles, and Falcons) have winning records as of today -- and only two of those teams are more than 1 game above 0.500. Those two putatively good teams, the Patriots* and Eagles, play in weak divisions: The Patriots*' division has no other winning teams. The Eagles' division has Washington and the flailing New York Giants.

New Orleans hasn't beaten many good teams this year. Which means they may not be so good, either. It's hard to tell, since they've struggled against terrible teams like the Rams, but then walked all over such ersatz contenders as the Patriots*. Statistically, the Saints are first overall in "total offense," but rank only 4th in passing and 5th in rushing. They don't rush for as many yards per game as the Dolphins, Panthers, Titans, or Jets -- which is a pretty meaningful statistic, because those teams aren't very good, but have gained more yards running than the Saints.

Those four teams which outrush the Saints pass almost as often as the Saints; they just get less out of it, gaining only about 2/3 the yards the Saints do while throwing the ball almost as often: The Saints average 31.2 passing attempts per game, while the Jets, who throw the ball the least in the league, average 25.2 attempts per game, or only 6 less passes per game than the Saints. The other three teams all throw 30 or more times per game -- so they throw almost as often as the Saints do.


Rushing, the statistics are more telling: The Panthers and Titans rank just behind the Saints in rushing attempts per game (all around 31), while the Jets and Dolphins run 33 and 36 times per game, respectively. But all four of those teams have more yards rushing than the Saints. The Jets have nearly 25% more yards -- over 2,000 to the Saints' under-1700.

The Saints, then, throw and run the ball about as often as those four terrible teams, but get less rushing yards. True, they get more passing yards, a lot more -- but what does that mean? Does that mean that the Saints' receivers and quarterbacks are just that much better than those other four teams? Or that their running backs are that much worse?

Or does it mean what I think it means: that the Saints' opponents are that much worse than those other four teams?

That appears to be at least part of the case: Coming in to the season, the Saints' schedule appeared to be the 8th-hardest in the NFL. But the Panthers, Dolphins and Jets all faced tougher schedules on paper. In actuality, the Dolphins', the Jets', the Panthers' and Saints' schedule has largely looked about the same -- as would be expected in the case of the Panthers and the Saints, who play in the same division. The Dolphins played Indianapolis, while the Saints were taking on Detroit, which is one difference -- but not enough to explain the difference between 5-6 and 11-0.

The Titans, though, play a markedly harder schedule. Their 11 games so far have included bouts against Pittsburgh, Houston, Jacksonville, the Colts, and Arizona -- only one of those teams has a losing record: Houston at 5-6, and that only became a losing record when they lost to the Colts last week. The Titans have played a harder schedule, have switched quarterbacks, began the year with a new defensive coordinator and without their best defensive player from last year and started 0-6 -- but have outrushed the Saints and have completed only about 40 passes less than the Saints.

So do the Saints have players that are that much better than the Titans? Or are the Saints a lucky schedule away from being 5-6? The Saints don't run the ball as well as the Titans and haven't faced as tough of a schedule as the Titans. It's not entirely clear whether the Saints' players are really markedly better than the players on those inferior teams -- in part because the Saints' schedule has made it hard to tell.

It will be hard to tell, too, as the season finishes up, because the Saints don't have many real tests left, either: Dallas is the best team remaining for them to play, and Dallas isn't so great (and plays terribly in December under Tony Romo.) So the Saints, whatever their record at the end of the regular season, may not know much about what kind of team they really are -- and neither will we, although my opinion is that they're an 8-8 team (like they were last year) with an easier schedule than last year -- and 8-8 teams don't tend to do well in the playoffs.

Nor do teams that start hot do well in the playoffs, generally. There's another reason, beyond an easy schedule, that the Saints won't make it to the Super Bowl: the 11-0 start.

The 11-0 start and weak schedule to finish, as well as the fact that the Saints will likely clinch a playoff spot today, means trouble for the Saints. Remember all those Indy and Broncos teams that would start the season 9-0, 10-0, 11-0? Remember how many of them won the Super Bowl? None.

That's because teams that don't play meaningful games in December can struggle in the playoffs. Some years, the teams that looked hot and didn't lose until week 12 or 13 sat their starters for much of the games and then came out looking rusty -- like the Colts did the year Pittsburgh beat them as a wild card and went on to win the Super Bowl: The Colts had a better record and were heavily favored but lost to Pittsburgh, in the playoffs, in Indy, because they started out rusty.

Last year, the Titans began the year 10-0 before losing to Brett Favre's Jets. Though they only lost three games the whole year, all three of those losses came after things were largely wrapped up for the season: The Titans were 12-2 on December 14 with 2 games remaining; their closest competitor in the division, the Colts, were 10-4 on that same date and could at best tie the Titans, so the Titans' games in December didn't matter much, and it showed when they lost their first playoff game 13-10 to Baltimore -- a team they'd beaten in the regular season early on when their games still counted.

The Saints haven't played a hard schedule so far, and they don't have to play a hard schedule to finish up. They're competing only with Minnesota, really, for home-field advantage. They have a one-game edge over the Vikings, but the Vikings face games at Arizona, the Bengals, and against the Giants to finish the season. If the Saints win today against the Redskins, and the Vikings stumble against the Cardinals tonight, the Saints will have a two-game cushion with four games remaining, and might start to relax.

Finally, consider defense. Everyone knows the Saints' offense scores a lot of points. And everyone this year now talks up the Saints' "much-improved" defense as the difference between the old, disappointing 8-8 Saints' teams and the new, hopefully-better 11-0 Saints' team.

The "new" "much-improved" defense is ranked only fifteenth in the league, though, giving up 20.1 points per game. Of the teams that have given up more points per game than the Saints, only four have winning records, and those teams barely have winning records. The other 11-0 team, the Colts, by comparison, have the third ranked defense, giving up 25% fewer points per game than the Saints.

So the Saints' defense is middle-of-the-road; is it "much-improved?" Not really: Last year, the Saints ranked 26th at the end of the year, giving up 24.6 points per game -- so they've improved by just over a field goal per game.

The Saints' offense finished last year ranked number one, and has remained there in scoring -- but has increased its average per game from 28.9 to the heady 37+ points per game the team scores now. So the Saints may be better -- their offense may be better and their defense may be better. Or maybe it's that their opponents are worse, remember.

So the defense isn't much better at all -- it's ranked higher but giving up only marginally fewer points per game. It's the offense that's improved a lot, and the schedule that's improved a lot more, even.

To understand the impact the schedule plays in both improving the win-loss record and the statistical improvement on offense and defense, consider:

Last year, the Saints were only 6-5 through 11 games, a record they compiled playing a tougher schedule than they have this year through 11 games. They finished 8-8 in 2008 (going 2-3 down the home stretch). That 8-8 meant they were a mediocre team, and the specific games they won showed that: the Saints got their eight wins largely by beating the bad teams they played and losing to the good teams.

This year, the Saints are 5 games better, and they've begun beating some good teams, too-- but haven't played any of the really good teams they'll face in the playoffs. Instead, they're playing weaker teams, and beating up on those. They haven't yet played any of the really good teams they'll meet in the one playoff game they'll get -- and those teams that they'll meet in the playoffs more than stack up to the Saints.

The Saints will play in the playoffs teams like the Minnesota Vikings, who have lost only one game, and that loss came on the road to the defending Super Bowl champions in a rather fluky series of events, and who have thrown for only 2 less touchdowns than the Saints, gained nearly as many yards, and whose defense gives up only 18 points per game. The Vikings have a better defense, nearly as good an offense, and have racked up those stats against a tougher schedule.

Or the Saints could have to face the Arizona Cardinals, who, at 7-4, don't appear to be a threat but they are: The Cardinals lost to the 49ers, the Colts, the Titans, and the Panthers so far. Two of those losses are understandable: the Colts have beaten everyone they've played this year, while the Titans have beaten everyone they've played the last five weeks. The Cardinals give up fewer points per game on defense than the Saints, and have played an equal- or tougher schedule.

Like I said, I'm not rooting against the Saints -- I'm rooting for them (although I'm also rooting for Brett Favre, which makes things kind of confusing for me at times. I'd like to see, maybe, a three-way football championship, or perhaps a round-robin World Cup type of affair where all the best teams could play each other a couple of times, but that's for a different post.) I just don't think the Saints will be marching into the promised land anytime soon.

They seem like an 11-0 team, but they're not. They're a one-and-done playoff team, destined to watch as another NFC team plays in their stead, yet again.

Saturday, December 05, 2009

Why you should never go to the last Google result. EVER. (Sweetie's Hunk of the Week, 41)

Don't forget to comment this post! Three days left in the contest: Comment and win a magazine subscription or book! You can enter more than once. Details here.

It's 6:09 a.m. on Saturday morning. I've given up trying to sleep in on Saturdays; every time I try to sleep in, Mr F and Mr Bunches wake me up to watch Peter Pan with them or to work their little M&M Christmas Toy Fans...

... no, I can't really explain what that is. Instead, let's get to Sweetie's 41st Hunk of the Week,

Giovanni Ribisi!


Wanted in 30 states.


(I hope I spelled that right. I don't speak Italian.) Also, really? Look at that guy. He's creeping me out. Let's try this:


Probably orders
white wine with dinner.




Okay. That's better.


You Don't Know Him Without you have watched Friends, where he played Frank, Phoebe's refrigerator-college-going, older-teacher-marrying, pyromaniac younger brother. Ah, remember the 1990s, when we still understood how kids burning things down and teachers molesting children was funny? Not like today, with all the killjoys insisting those things are crimes and reducing our sitcoms to making jokes about pie.



Funnier than any dessert. Except "flan." THAT's humor!


Yes, Giovanni Ribisi -- whose name I can't type, it seems, without accidentally putting an a on the end of his first name, so that it comes out Giovannia, and then I have to backspace and delete the a, so let's just call him Giovannia -- Giovannia Ribisi, like such other luminescent actors of our generation (Bob Denver, Jerry Mathers, Gary Coleman) finds himself in a bind: On the one hand, he's a great actor (just like Jerry Mathers), but on the other, the only thing people (me) remember him for is playing Frank, which, let's be honest, we probably only remember because Frank was the only Phoebe-based storyline that was ever even remotely interesting, at least until Mike came along.

In fact, Phoebe had the distinction of being the only character I can think of, ever, in a TV show, who was only interesting in relation to who she was interacting with: Alec Baldwin, Mike, Steve Zahn as her gay ice dancer ex-husband, even that widow who didn't want to pay the catering bill when she and Monica started a catering business: all of them were more interesting than Phoebe, who by all rights should've been dropped off the show immediately. The rest of the Friends you could see being Friends, but Phoebe? It was hard to imagine her existing, period. (Nowadays, a real-life Phoebe would have her own reality show and perfume line. But then again, everyone has their own perfume line nowadays. Andy Warhol should have said "In the future, everyone will be given a chance to smell like everybody else.")

(But he didn't. I said that, and don't you forget it.)



You're getting off track. Focus!


So. Giovannia Ribisi, about whom we were talking, has appeared in 77 different things, according to his IMDB resume, including not just Friends but actual movies where he was actually good, but also in things like The Wonder Years, where he played a role called Hulk Arnold, and, also, it turns out, his very first role ever, back in 1983, was playing Duffy Guthrie in...

Still The Beaver! So you see? I was right to link him with Jerry Mathers, just like I always am when I make these offhand remarks that are the hallmark of my genius. I say something half-baked, and it turns out to be true. I'm like a Greek God! And not one of those crummy Greek gods whose job was delivering messages, UPSilon or something; a really good Greek god, who can foretell the future or something, and come up with really good parodies of Andy Warhol quotes.

Giovannia Ribisi's role in Still The Beaver must have been small; the only person lower than him on the credits is Hugh Beaumont, who was dead.

And, I was able to find a clip from Still The Beaver:



I watched it; Giovannia doesn't appear in there. But it did make me nostalgic for the early 1980s, a glorious time when nobody had yet heard of Ewoks, grunge, or Twilight.

From those humble beginnings, Giovannia went on to such other huge roles as a two-episode stint on Blossom, and an undescribed role in Untitled Jason Lee Short, which I imagine is him and Jason Lee sitting around and shooting pool and forgetting that the camcorder was running.

Thing That Makes You Go Hmmm About Him:
The first things that spring to mind here are the way it's actually impossible to type his name without adding that a on the end, and the question of "how bad do you have to be to get dropped from Blossom after only two episodes?" But I delved deeper, for you:

I Googled Giovannia Ribisi to see what I could dig up on him, since the only reason I remembered him at all was that last night I watched a Friends rerun, the episode where Phoebe ( ugh! What we need is a DVR-style thing that instead of skipping commercials, lets people delete out characters they don't like from old TV shows. Good-bye, Phoebe! Good-bye, Janet! Good-bye, entire cast of Cheers!) tells Frank that she's having triplets, and Frank yells "I finally got my band!"

And,
I'm not kidding. I really did Google Giovannia Ribisi, because I can't type his name without adding that vowel on. I'm sure it's some latent ethnicism in me, adding that a because it seems Italian, and probably is Italian, since, as everyone knows, Italians-a add-a the a onto their-a words-a. So I'm a multilingual Greek god, and probably moments away from my own signature perfume.




Google didn't mind the extraneous a and knew what I was looking for anyway, which is one reason why Microsoft's attempt to pay people not to be listed on Google won't work, (and why someday we'll all work for Google)(I call dibs on the personalized perfume VP job!).

I got 169,000 results for Giovannia Ribisi, which made me curious about two things: 1. Is there really a Giovannia Ribisi? and 2., What's the absolute last result for that search?

The answers to those questions are 1. How should I know? Ask him/her. and 2. This is:

Giovanni Ribisi On My Name Is Earl « Fresh Hotness

Dec 25, 2006 ... I've always loved me some Giovanni Ribisi. He's one of our most underrated actors, and he's pretty sexy. Which is why it was so great to see ... freshhotness.wordpress.com/.../giovanni-ribisi-on-my-name-is-earl/ -



That is a link to a site called "Fresh Hotness," which I clicked on only to find that it's a gay porn site, making my search history all the more interesting to the various investigatory agencies that have me on their website. Thanks, Google!


This will go down on my permanent record.


That little search led not just to uncomfortable feelings, but this other thought: Why is there no skip-to-the-end feature on Google? I had to page through manually, skipping ahead 10 pages at a time. Those Google guys are usually so smart, but they really dropped the ball there. Google founders, I will let you use my skip-to-the-end idea if you give me 1% of your total wealth.

(You think I'm a fool for that deal, but each of the two founders has a net worth of $12 billion dollars, so if you gave me 1% of their wealth, I'd have 24,000,000m and could probably afford to hire someone to go into the Babies! room on Saturday morning and start their DVD so that I could sleep in.)

(Speaking of billionaires, consider this: The total cost of one health plan currently being considered by Congress is $1.055 trillion, or this: 1,055,000,000,000. The net worth -- net, after expenses-- of the top 10 people on the Forbes 400 list this year is more than 1/4 of that, $28,055,000,000. If those top 10 were to give 1/2 their accumulated wealth, that would pay 10% of the total cost of universal health care, and leave those top 10 with still $14,049,500,000 to spend. Don't worry about them: if you had $14,049,500,000, you could spend $200 a minute, every minute of your life, and not run out of money, even if you lived to be one hundred years old. Those rich people are hoarding money and they're evil, so don't tell me that we can't pay for health care.)

Anyway, the thing that makes you go Hmmm about Giovanni Ribisi is that if you look too far into his Google results, you get gay porn.



Why do I keep going back to this? Where's Still The Beaver?
I should Google that... on second thought, no.



But that could probably be said about anybody. So really, in the future, we'll all have our own signature fragrances and be linked to gay porn. Thanks, Google!

The Reason I Tell Myself Sweetie Likes Him: Giovanni kind of came out of the blue. As I crawled back to bed for 10 minutes of snoozing after fixing the Peter Pan DVD, I asked Sweetie what the name of her original hunk, a guy who didn't make the cut but who looks kind of like Darren from Bewitched, was. She said she didn't want Not-Darren anymore, and instead wanted Giovanni Ribisi, and I immediately assumed that because I watched that Friends episode last night, Sweetie had fallen asleep and dreamed about Giovanni Ribisi all night... gay porn dreams.

They probably began like this:



Then moved into more dangerous territory:




The Actual Reason Sweetie Likes Him: "He's just so cute."

Point I'd Like To Make About Sweetie's Actual Reason For Liking Him: That was also Sweetie's exact reason for liking Hunk 14! And she says I never pay attention to her!




Also, consider this:



Also, my signature perfume fragrance will include hints of french toast.








Friday, December 04, 2009

The thaw comes on at Candlemas: I know... (Friday's Sunday's Poem, 38)

It's back! I know I haven't posted a Friday's Sunday's Poem in a while, but circumstances intervened. Anyway, the FSP makes it's triumphant return with the first of a couple of Christmas poems. People seem to think that the only Christmas poem, ever, was the poem that Clement Moore might have stolen from someone else and seized credit for, the way Orange Julius has been taking credit for my idea all these years. But that's not so, as today's poem and the upcoming FSPs will prove:

Sir Galahad, a Christmas Mystery
by William Morris

It is the longest night in all the year,
Near on the day when the Lord Christ was born;
Six hours ago I came and sat down here,
And ponder'd sadly, wearied and forlorn.

The winter wind that pass'd the chapel door,
Sang out a moody tune, that went right well
With mine own thoughts: I look'd down on the floor,
Between my feet, until I heard a bell

Sound a long way off through the forest deep,
And toll on steadily; a drowsiness
Came on me, so that I fell half asleep,
As I sat there not moving: less and less

I saw the melted snow that hung in beads
Upon my steel-shoes; less and less I saw
Between the tiles the bunches of small weeds:
Heartless and stupid, with no touch of awe

Upon me, half-shut eyes upon the ground,
I thought: O Galahad! the days go by,
Stop and cast up now that which you have found,
So sorely you have wrought and painfully.

Night after night your horse treads down alone
The sere damp fern, night after night you sit
Holding the bridle like a man of stone,
Dismal, unfriended: what thing comes of it?

And what if Palomydes also ride,
And over many a mountain and bare heath
Follow the questing beast with none beside?
Is he not able still to hold his breath

With thoughts of Iseult? doth he not grow pale
With weary striving, to seem best of all
To her, "as she is best," he saith? to fail
Is nothing to him, he can never fall.

For unto such a man love-sorrow is
So dear a thing unto his constant heart,
That even if he never win one kiss,
Or touch from Iseult, it will never part.

And he will never know her to be worse
Than in his happiest dreams he thinks she is:
Good knight, and faithful, you have 'scaped the curse
In wonderful-wise; you have great store of bliss.

Yea, what if Father Launcelot ride out,
Can he not think of Guenevere's arms, round
Warm and lithe, about his neck, and shout
Till all the place grows joyful with the sound?

And when he lists can often see her face,
And think, "Next month I kiss you, or next week,
And still you think of me": therefore the place
Grows very pleasant, whatsoever he seek.

But me, who ride alone, some carle shall find
Dead in my arms in the half-melted snow,
When all unkindly with the shifting wind,
The thaw comes on at Candlemas: I know

Indeed that they will say: "This Galahad
If he had lived had been a right good knight;
Ah! poor chaste body!" but they will be glad,
Not most alone, but all, when in their sight

That very evening in their scarlet sleeves
The gay-dress'd minstrels sing; no maid will talk
Of sitting on my tomb, until the leaves,
Grown big upon the bushes of the walk,

East of the Palace-pleasaunce, make it hard
To see the minster therefrom: well-a-day!
Before the trees by autumn were well bared,
I saw a damozel with gentle play,

Within that very walk say last farewell
To her dear knight, just riding out to find
(Why should I choke to say it?) the Sangreal,
And their last kisses sunk into my mind,

Yea, for she stood lean'd forward on his breast,
Rather, scarce stood; the back of one dear hand,
That it might well be kiss'd, she held and press'd
Against his lips; long time they stood there, fann'd

By gentle gusts of quiet frosty wind,
Till Mador de la porte a-going by,
And my own horsehoofs roused them; they untwined,
And parted like a dream. In this way I,

With sleepy face bent to the chapel floor,
Kept musing half asleep, till suddenly
A sharp bell rang from close beside the door,
And I leapt up when something pass'd me by,

Shrill ringing going with it, still half blind
I stagger'd after, a great sense of awe
At every step kept gathering on my mind,
Thereat I have no marvel, for I saw

One sitting on the altar as a throne,
Whose face no man could say he did not know,
And though the bell still rang, he sat alone,
With raiment half blood-red, half white as snow.

Right so I fell upon the floor and knelt,
Not as one kneels in church when mass is said,
But in a heap, quite nerveless, for I felt
The first time what a thing was perfect dread.

But mightily the gentle voice came down:
"Rise up, and look and listen, Galahad,
Good knight of God, for you will see no frown
Upon my face; I come to make you glad.

"For that you say that you are all alone,
I will be with you always, and fear not
You are uncared for, though no maiden moan
Above your empty tomb; for Launcelot,

"He in good time shall be my servant too,
Meantime, take note whose sword first made him knight,
And who has loved him alway, yea, and who
Still trusts him alway, though in all men's sight,

"He is just what you know, O Galahad,
This love is happy even as you say,
But would you for a little time be glad,
To make ME sorry long, day after day?

"Her warm arms round his neck half throttle ME,
The hot love-tears burn deep like spots of lead,
Yea, and the years pass quick: right dismally
Will Launcelot at one time hang his head;

"Yea, old and shrivell'd he shall win my love.
Poor Palomydes fretting out his soul!
Not always is he able, son, to move
His love, and do it honour: needs must roll

"The proudest destrier sometimes in the dust,
And then 'tis weary work; he strives beside
Seem better than he is, so that his trust
Is always on what chances may betide;

"And so he wears away, my servant, too,
When all these things are gone, and wretchedly
He sits and longs to moan for Iseult, who
Is no care now to Palomydes: see,

"O good son, Galahad, upon this day,
Now even, all these things are on your side,
But these you fight not for; look up, I say,
And see how I can love you, for no pride

"Closes your eyes, no vain lust keeps them down.
See now you have ME always; following
That holy vision, Galahad, go on,
Until at last you come to ME to sing

"In Heaven always, and to walk around
The garden where I am." He ceased, my face
And wretched body fell upon the ground;
And when I look'd again, the holy place

Was empty; but right so the bell again
Came to the chapel-door, there entered
Two angels first, in white, without a stain,
And scarlet wings, then, after them, a bed

Four ladies bore, and set it down beneath
The very altar-step, and while for fear
I scarcely dared to move or draw my breath,
Those holy ladies gently came a-near,

And quite unarm'd me, saying: "Galahad,
Rest here awhile and sleep, and take no thought
Of any other thing than being glad;
Hither the Sangreal will be shortly brought,

"Yet must you sleep the while it stayeth here."
Right so they went away, and I, being weary,
Slept long and dream'd of Heaven: the bell comes near,
I doubt it grows to morning. Miserere!

[Enter Two Angels in white, with scarlet wings; also, Four Ladies in gowns of red and green; also an Angel, bearing in his hands a surcoat of white, with a red cross.]

AN ANGEL

O servant of the high God, Galahad!
Rise and be arm'd: the Sangreal is gone forth
Through the great forest, and you must be had
Unto the sea that lieth on the north:

There shall you find the wondrous ship wherein
The spindles of King Solomon are laid,
And the sword that no man draweth without sin,
But if he be most pure: and there is stay'd,

Hard by, Sir Launcelot, whom you will meet
In some short space upon that ship: first, though,
Will come here presently that lady sweet,
Sister of Percival, whom you well know,

And with her Bors and Percival: stand now,
These ladies will to arm you.

[FIRST LADY, putting on the hauberk]

Galahad,
That I may stand so close beneath your brow,
Margaret of Antioch, am glad.

[SECOND LADY, girding him with the sword.]

That I may stand and touch you with my hand,
O Galahad, I, Cecily, am glad.

[THIRD LADY, buckling on the spurs.]

That I may kneel while up above you stand,
And gaze at me, O holy Galahad,
I, Lucy, am most glad.

[FOURTH LADY, putting on the basnet.]

O gentle knight,
That you bow down to us in reverence,
We are most glad, I, Katherine, with delight
Must needs fall trembling.

[ANGEL, putting on the crossed surcoat.]

Galahad, we go hence,

For here, amid the straying of the snow,
Come Percival's sister, Bors, and Percival.

[The Four Ladies carry out the bed, and all go but Galahad.]

GALAHAD.

How still and quiet everything seems now:
They come, too, for I hear the horsehoofs fall.

[Enter Sir Bors, Sir Percival and his Sister.]

Fair friends and gentle lady, God you save!
A many marvels have been here to-night;
Tell me what news of Launcelot you have,
And has God's body ever been in sight?

SIR BORS.

Why, as for seeing that same holy thing,
As we were riding slowly side by side,
An hour ago, we heard a sweet voice sing,
And through the bare twigs saw a great light glide,

With many-colour'd raiment, but far off;
And so pass'd quickly: from the court nought good;
Poor merry Dinadan, that with jape and scoff
Kept us all merry, in a little wood

Was found all hack'd and dead: Sir Lionel
And Gauwaine have come back from the great quest,
Just merely shamed; and Lauvaine, who loved well
Your father Launcelot, at the king's behest

Went out to seek him, but was almost slain,
Perhaps is dead now; everywhere
The knights come foil'd from the great quest, in vain;
In vain they struggle for the vision fair.


The path Mr F is on is now all covered by snow. (3 Good Things From 12/4/09)

YOU CAN ENTER MORE THAN ONCE, you know. Still 4 days left in the contest: Comment on this post! You could win a book or magazine subscription (details here) and you'll be making me happy (details on that here.)

It's Friday, last night's snow didn't stick, I've got
Vampire Weekend playing, and I'm not going into the office today. I don't need my 3 Good Things to be happy, but I've got them anyway...

1. I ran 3.6 miles in 35 minutes last night. I'm no Read.Dance.Bliss -- yet-- but I'm getting there. I upped my regular workout by 5 minutes last night, and burned 411 calories... or about the equivalent of the slice of pecan pie I had for dessert. (Sweetie said she read somewhere that a slice of pecan pie can have as much as 1500 calories; I prefer to read articles extolling the health benefits of dessert. So someone please write one of those articles...)

Speaking of RDB, I think she's still accepting donations to raise money to help fight blood cancer; she'll do the running, you just have to do the pledging, so help her help others.

2. I got to watch Fitzy play football a little! I rarely get a chance to watch the Buffalo Bills play live -- since I don't live in Buffalo and since they're so god-awful they really shouldn't be televised, but last night's game (which I found out about around five p.m.) was just such a chance, and I indulged almost 15 minutes (before falling asleep) of rooting for the Bills' new QB, Ryan Fitzpatrick, to do something. He didn't, and the Bills are still terrible, but at least the game was close.

3. Did I mention Sweetie made a pecan pie and I had some? Sweetie wanted to make a pecan pie for brother-in-law Charlie, and to make sure the recipe worked, she made a second one for The Boy and I to test out. I happily accommodated her. The Boy announced that pecan pie was "too rich" and had a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles instead.


I think it might be in the dishwasher, too, with the cat.

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf of Charter. All opinions are 100% mine.



Ondemand Kids today don't understand tv schedules, or Mommy's schedules. But I do, and I'm here not just to commiserate but to help.

See, I know what you Mommies go through, at least a little, because I'm a new-agey kind of hands-on dad who takes the Babies! with him when he goes shopping or to the library or almost anywhere, which means you can find me almost any day of the week, struggling to push a cart through the Wal-Mart video section while Mr Bunches runs away and Mr F hangs on to my feet to try to stop me from leaving that section without the latest "Little Einsteins" video.

And if I'm not doing that, you can find me at home, searching through 400 or 500 or 1,500 or however many channels we have, trying to find something the Babies! will want to watch because they're bored with their DVDs but they need to settle down and watch some TV or DADDY'S GOING TO GO INSANE!

I get that way because we don't have Charter On Demand. Yet. But YOU can get Charter On Demand, the service that lets you avoid going to the store with 2 or 3 or 4 kids who don't want to be there, and lets you avoid the "there's nothing on TV" claims that kids will make. With Charter on Demand, which is FREE with your Charter Digital, you'll have access to more than 6,000 movies and TV shows, available to watch in full episodes on your TV, ANYTIME you want to watch them.

Did I mention it's FREE?

So you can use your Charter On Demand to put on the kids' favorite shows, buying you some much-needed time to get the cat out of the dishwasher, or to maybe take a bath. You can have family time anytime, sitting down with Hubby and the kids to watch a movie you've been waiting to see, without having to drive to the store and hear "We're out of that one, how about this 1980s buddy comedy?"

And, after all the kids are in bed and Hubby's working on his fantasy football team, you can relax with those shows you never get to see -- The Office, 30 Rock, and more.

Charter On Demand puts Hollywood at your fingertips, waiting for you to call up the stars and tell them to start performing. So start using it now, or, if you don't have Charter, do what I'm going to do: Call them today and order.

I'll be doing that as soon as I find out what Mr F did with our phone.

Interested? You can learn more at charter.net/ondemand, or, if you're the social type, get updates and fun extras on Charter’s Facebook page.


SocialSpark Disclosure Badge