Yeah, after months of mess and decision - my kitchen remodel is done! And it looks FANTASTIC! nearly all of my home has been remodeled now. My contractor did a beautiful job and I couldn't be happier. I'll try to post pics soon.

A few funny words from my friend cat:

NINE WORDS WOMEN USE
(1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.
(2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the house.
(3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.
(4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission.. Don't Do It!
(5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to #3 for the meaning of nothing.)
(6) That's Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That's okay means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.
(7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you're welcome. (I want to add in a clause here - This is true, unless she says 'Thanks a lot' - that is PURE sarcasm and she is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say 'you're welcome' .. that will bring on a 'whatever').
(8) Whatever: Is a woman's way of saying F-- YOU!
(9) Don't worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a man asking 'What's wrong?' For the woman's response refer to # 3.

YaYa Diet:

Breakfast

1 grapefruit
1 slice whole wheat toast
1 cup skim milk

Lunch

1 small portion lean, steamed chicken
1 cup spinach
1 cup herbal tea
1 Hershey's kiss

Afternoon Tea

1 The rest of the Hershey Kisses in the bag
1 tub of Hagen-Daaz ice cream with chocolate chips

Dinner

4 glasses of wine (red or white)
2 loaves garlic bread
1 family size supreme pizza
3 Snickers Bars

Late Night Snack

1 whole Sarah Lee cheesecake (eaten directly from the freezer)

Remember: Stressed spelled backward is desserts and you can handle every stressful situation like a dog: piss on it and walk away.

I haven't posted in so long because I'm doing renovations in my house. My third bathroom was completed a couple days ago (woohoo!!), but my kitchen is still gutted. Many trips to Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, etc have kept me away. However, I just had to share this news:

GLBT author JM Snyder is running a poll to see if people are interested in her organizing a GLBT author gathering/mini-con/signing. I think it's a great idea, and hoped others might participate. The link for the poll (which she posted on Facebook) is here:

Rainbow Bookfest

I was lucky to meet Ally Blue and Kiernan Kelly at Dragcon a couple years ago, and would like to meet others authors I read.

Not long ago Amazon remotely removed copies of George Orwell's 1984 from Kindle users' devices. Well, the fallout has begun. Someone is suing. From EW.com:

Amazon sued for deleting e-books from its Kindle device
by John Young

A 17-year-old student is suing Internet giant Amazon.com for deleting his e-book copy of George Orwell’s 1984 –along with a series of electronic notes he’d written– from his Kindle device, according to the AP. In mid-July, Amazon deleted copies of Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm from users’ Kindle devices because it was discovered that those particular electronic editions were pirated (affected customers received a credit on their accounts). But high school student Justin D. Gawronski and adult reader Antoine J. Bruguier filed a lawsuit on July 30 in Seattle, claiming the Internet company never told its customers that it “possessed the ability or right to remotely delete digital content purchased through the Kindle Store.” Gawronski was nearly halfway through reading 1984 for a school assignment when both the novel and his personal notes vanished from his Kindle.


Problem is, they have a point. Bigger problem is, they don't deserve the millions they are probably asking for. Can't wait to see how Amazon responds.

While in college, I read an excellent historical fiction novel called Pope Joan. This was before the novel became a sensation for its "controversial" subject matter (a la "the Da Vinci Code.") It was a well-written novel based on an actual myth - that a woman, disguised as a man, made it to the very top of the RC Church heirarchy. Now, the novel is being made into a film by Constantin Film.

Unfortunately, their last film didn't do very well in the US and they are considering not releasing this one here. That would be a shame. I love period movies and would love to see this. If you read the novel, and would be interested in the film, you can tell the producers so here: PopeJoan.com

Just spotted a movie poster for a flick bowing next year called Jonah Hex. Never heard of it before, but I now know it is based on (of course!) a comic book. And the poster makes me want to see it.



So, the blurb made me think about the importance of movie posters in general. In a lot of cases, my first urge to see a movie comes because of a cool poster. Underworld is a prime example. That poster with Kate Beckinsale MADE me want to see it even before I knew there were vampires and werewolves! Contrarily, I'm still not sure about District 9 coming in a few weeks. The poster sucks, and the trailer don't show enough yet. So, still undecided. The UP! poster was kinda forgettable, but thankfully the trailer lured me in full throttle and the movie was excellent. But, usually it seems to me the poster matches how good the movie will be (for me)

What about you? Do posters impact your desire to see a movie? Any particular poster that got you in the door - that was worth it, or not?

Since I'm just full of controversial thoughts these days, I figured I'd throw this out there as well. I just read an article/interview on Time.com about science and how it is perceived by the public. This article struck a cord with me for a couple of reasons. First, I work at the National Institute of Standards & Technology. We do a lot of scientific research (NIST built the first Atomic clock - why does this matter to Joe Public? Because atomic clocks make it possible for GPS to work). Not only does funding keep my job around, but I actually believe the work we do is important. We have three Nobel Prize winners on our staff, who could likely make more elsewhere but must at some level feel working for the public good, and not just a paycheck, is important. I was ecstatic when Obama was elected because he promised to ratchet up science. Under the Bush administration, scientific funding in the government was minimal. Obama actually appointed scientists to key positions, such as the Secretary of the Department of Energy.

But, the issues Chris Mooney shares are very real and of concern. Usually, the public expects results immediately. We want it NOW. Science doesn't work this way, but is still critical. Regardless of which side of the debate you are on with stem cells, Bush's ban on federal funding of embryonic research did have one (possibly) unexpected impact - more studies of other stem cells found viable alternatives. Basic research yields benefits that we may not even know about. Sure, there are projects at NIST that make me wonder "huh?" But, if it means that someday my house will run the washing machine at midnight to conserve energy off-peak hours, or the road will tell me there's traffic on my normal route, it's worth it. Government-funded science plays an important role. Corporate interests also spur R&D, but profit is the underlying goal and motivator. Sometimes, science needs to be studied for science's sake (and that of the public good).

I'm a registered Republican. Mainly because I never got around to changing it. I voted for Obama because I felt the Republican Party was no longer in touch with themselves, let alone the American public. The GOP has become the party of old white men. And the Democrats are right, they have become the party of NO. Every time I look at the news I see the battle over HEALTHCARE. And I get more and more annoyed with the GOP. Yes, I'm worried about the amount of money being spent and the growing National debt. I don't think bigger government is the answer. However, I'm the first to admit I don't know what the answer is, and at least President Obama is trying something. And I am sick and tired of the GOP attacking Obama for his spending and yet NEVER offering up an alternate solution.

Easy for those lazy bastards in Congress, with phenomenal healthcare they keep for LIFE, who conveniently vote themselves raises every chance they can, who are going on "recess" soon (I don't get a damn recess from my job, do you?) and won't give themselves term limits to tell us the President is wrong. And I am damn tired of them slamming the stimulus bill for putting us further in debt while conveniently forgetting the 700 billion stimulus bill the GOP rammed down our throats for Wall Street just months before Obama took office. Pot calling the kettle black, much? At least this time the money is supposed to help the average American, not Wall Street get better bonuses. Of course, the GOP is all about big business because most of them fall into that category. No, Obama's stimulus wasn't an immediate fix, but what the hell would be? And I work for the government - let me tell you that spending that much money, that fast, with full accountability and transparency takes time. Let me quote a famous Republican on this one, "trickle down effect." The stimulus will help, if we give these programs a chance to work. Oh, and here's what spurred this rant:

I didn’t make it to a midnight showing (even if they hadn’t been sold out, I couldn't stay up that late and go to work), but did leave a bit early yesterday to see a 3:10 afternoon show. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. As it compares to the other films, it was better than some but not the best. B+, mainly because I think the changes they made to the climax weren’t as good as the original material.

Unlike some fans of the books, I don’t automatically think “sacrilege!” when material is cut from the book to make the film. Mostly I agree. I think the storyline with Hagrid and his giant brother from Phoenix was fluff in the book; cutting it made the movie better for me. Occasionally I disagree. I wasn’t too thrilled that they cut Hermione’s clever besting of Rita Skeeter in Goblet, but could see why the filmmakers did so – that would have added more time to an already long movie (not that I would have complained). Film is a different medium for story-telling and has different needs, not the least of which is running time. But, the cuts/changes they made to Prince just didn’t seem necessary to me.

I’m not talking about the majority of the film (or the fact that the title barely got an explanation). My criticism stems from the climactic death scene at the end. STOP HERE IF YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW WHO DIED! In the book, Dumbledore and Harry return from their mission to find the school under attack from Death Eaters. Dumbledore’s Army is holding them off, with some help from a luck potion, until the Order of the Phoenix can arrive to back them up. This was completely cut. We don’t get to see the kids in action, which was a big disappointment and made the arrival of the Death Eaters more of an after-thought. I didn’t feel any particular menace or surprise that they were in the school. Then, on top of the tower, Dumbledore has Harry hide under his invisibility cloak and then paralyzes him there. Not so in the film. Harry hides underneath the stairs and “valiantly” manages to restrain himself from coming to Dumbledore’s aid (which doesn’t jive with his character). Then, Dumbledore confronts Draco and the Death Eaters. They weren’t in this scene. It was just Dumbledore, Draco, Harry (hidden) and finally Snape. I love Bellatrix’s character, but it seemed they changed the scene just so she could be in it. It didn’t work. Rowling’s original set-up was superior. Had they kept it, this would easily have been the best HP film.

Despite this, I did enjoy the movie a lot. Prince, as the penultimate novel, was really more of staging point, or set-up of the finale, so it didn’t have as much action as the other books or films. It did have a lot of character development. The film provoked a lot more laughter than any other HP film, and still captured the spirit of the book very well. I cried when AD died. Now, I am anxious to see what they do with the last book. I’m not thrilled at the prospect of two movies (especially waiting the 6 months between them), but it does have some advantages. TWO film budgets, twice the running time, more detail. *fingers crossed*


Update: ironic - found a "critic" who pretty much felt just like I did. His blow by blow is here.

Went to see Public Enemies Saturday night with my friend. It was very slow, but very well done. The movie could have easily been edited to be more dramatic and fast-paced (there were a lot of chases, shoot-outs and action), but I don't think anyone would have cared what happened to Dillinger or Purvis if that were the case. The filmmakers put a lot of effort into developing the "characters" so you got to know and care about both men. It was easy to see why the public accepted and even cheered for the murdering bank robber. And Depp was smokin' as Dillinger! Bale may have come off as wooden to some, but for me it fit the person he was portraying. A boring, obsessed lawman who has no life forced to bend the law to catch a criminal. He did pretty good with the accent too.

Now, anxiously waiting for Harry Potter on Wednesday. I usually wait for weekend releases, but not this time. Dinner and a movie. Woohoo!

I got my baccalaureate degree in Political Science. One of the classes I took was "Political Cartoons." It seems frivolous, but it was an amazing class that I learned a lot from. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then these speak volumes, about the media and about the public:

We are about to enter the BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh our memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking activity. When a man volunteers to do the BBQ, the following chain of events are put into motion:

Routine...

(1) The woman buys the food.

(2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, makes desserts, etc...

(3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand.

(4) The woman remains outside the compulsory three meter exclusion zone where the exuberance of testosterone and other manly bonding activities can take place without the interference of the woman.

Here comes the important part:

(5) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL.

(6) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery.

(7) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is looking great. He thanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he flips the meat.

Important again:

(8) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN.

More routine...

(9) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins, sauces, and brings them to the table.

(10) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes.

And most important of all:

(11) Everyone PRAISES the MAN and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts.

(12) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed 'her night off', and, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women.