if you're looking to go on a sex tour, don't go to ohio

truer words have never been spoken, friends.

hahahah.

actually, jon stewart spoke these particular words on last night's episode of TDS whilst trying to explain where they'd been for the past 10 days and why we could all stop waiting, and wishing, and hoping they'd stop showing repeats. guess they've been gearing up for the next two weeks.

but while we're on the great-quotations-in-unlikely-places tip, here's a little gem i stumbled on last night while reading 'the third person' by henry james (in case you don't know - like i didnt - that this story is about two - dare i say it? - spinsters):

'The Misses Frush were not vulgar; they had drunk deep of the cup of singleness and found it prevailingly bitter; they were not unacquainted with solitude and sadness, and they recognized with due humility the supreme opportunity of their lives.'

because i had a couple requests for more information on my puttanesca, or as stephen so delicately called it - whore's sauce (ahem. stephen, it is listed in the 'joy of cooking' as streetwalker's sauce, thank you very much.), here's the gist of what i did:

sauteed in EV olive oil an enormous amount of fresh garlic, anchovies (yes! the more, the better - i love them!), oregano (which i insist on pronouncing as the british do - oar-ay-gahn-no. say it with me.), fresh parsley, black olives (not good oil cured ones, though, so there was some flavor lacking here), an equally enormous amount of capers (couldn't get those ones covered in salt like i could in philadelphia, alas), and a large can of peeled tomatoes that i crushed in hand.

i must say, the puttanesca is even better on day two. seemed somehow even more flavorful if that was possible. i put it over some cod that i'd cooked in some more garlic and oregano. perfecto. call me mary ann esposito.

and some recent (CHEAP!) wine finds:

yellow tail makes a nice merlot/cabernet which is also better on the second day - and a steal at 5.99 at krogers.

brown brothers makes a delicious shiraz (2001) - this came to me compliments of my australian wine expert and drinking buddy, linder (or to you folks without the heavy aussie accents, linda). this was also a relative bargain at about $12 also at kroger.

we will draw no conclusions about me having discussed being single, eating, and drinking a lot of wine in one blog. there is no connection whatsoever. none. at all. really.

a plea for literature - a plate of puttanesca

one of my friends suggested that i take a break from the political talk and return to an earlier passion - literature. i'll let it go at face value. i'll assume his suggestion was in no way, shape, or form motivated by his utter revulsion that i have any (however slight) sympathetic leanings towards bush. heh.

but i'm feeling somewhat unable to talk about literature right now. i think this stems from several reasons:

1) i've made it a goal for my life that i will read all of henry james. i adore henry james. adore him. that doesn't mean he's easy to read. i'm making my way through 'the beast in the jungle' at the moment. yes, i realize this is a short story, and i should be able to 'make my way through it' in one sitting - alas, one sitting for a work by james could last for several days. and even though i have loads of free time, even i don't have that much time on my hands. so it's slow going. i still recommend james, though, so do read him whenever you get a chance (my favorite work of his that i've read is still The Ambassadors).

2) in talking with one of my friends, for the first time in my life, i heard someone say that shakespeare was "boring." pshaw! long - yes. intricate - i hear you. cumbersome language - gotcha. boring - you've got to be kidding me. and this perhaps struck such a chord because i was at the time retelling the premise of Othello, which surely must be at the very tippy top of my list of favorite works of all time, and especially of works of shakespeare. i've leave this issue go so that you all might ponder the notion that shakespeare is boring.

3) derrida died. many of you may not know or may, more to the point, not care who derrida is, or should i say, was. he was a theorist. and to be blunt about it, he (along with about 20 or so other theorists) made my graduate school experience unpleasant. heh. that's putting it mildly. but there is a rather interesting piece in today's New York Times about the role of theorists and how the particular wave of theorists - of which derrida was at the very crest of said wave - are acceptable insofar as their philosophies coincide with social and cultural change. a bit of the chicken and egg, i know and grant you. an interesting example in the article is that deconstruction and other (literary) theories came to prominence (and by 'prominence' - i mean to say they were embraced by loads of wonky literature professors and english grad students who preferred to navel-gaze and ponder the binaries that constitute our existence than actually to pick up a literary work and read it) as events unfolded in china, the soviet union, and eastern europe. that is, in effect, it became easy to speak about deconstruction in a literary sense when deconstruction in quite a literal sense was going on all over the world.

but how does this keep me from talking about literature? i'm not sure. maybe it just harkens back bad grad school memories - and grad school did little more than confirm for me that i have nothing intelligent to say about literature. heh.

if anyone wants the article, let me know.

so rather than be overly literary or analytical today, i decided to make some puttanesca sauce -- err, gravy (sorry to my italian friend, david gallagherio). and it was damn fine. if any of you is looking for a nice and spicy italian meal, i'll happily make more of my puttanesca. i think it might become my new specialty. in my current sorry state of a kitchen, it's easy for me to forget that i'm actually quite a good cook when i set my mind to it. and, to boot, now my house smells of garlic. ahhh...the smell of heaven.

you're partisan - what's the word? - uh, hacks

ok, we all know just how very much i adore tim russert. but after last week, jon stewart is giving tim a run for his money as the love of my life. a snippet from salon.com's 'war room' column describes his appearance on 'crossfire' last week. you go, jon. tell that stupid tucker carlson who's boss.

Jon Stewart: Crossfire "hurting America"

"I think you're a lot more fun on your show," said Tucker Carlson to "Crossfire" guest Jon Stewart this afternoon. "And I think you're as much of a dick on your show as on any other," Stewart shot back. It wasn't the faux avuncularity we've come to expect from Stewart on "The Daily Show" but there, of course, he's playing a role. Here he was himself -- and he wasn't buying any of it.

From the moment Stewart sat down he made no secret of how repugnant he found the show. In fact, he said to Carlson and co-host Paul Begala that he had been so hard on the show he felt it was his duty to come on and say to their faces what he has said to friends and in interviews. What he said was that their show was "hurting America," and he was being only slightly hyperbolic. Stewart told them that when America needed journalists to be journalists they had instead chosen to present theater.

Carlson, trying to affect an air of dry amusement that a comedian would presume to lecture him, important pundit that he is, but looking as if his bow-tie were about to start spinning, could barely contain his outrage. In an absolutely mind-boggling moment, Carlson tried to counter Stewart's criticism by pointing out that during John Kerry's recent appearance on "The Daily Show," Stewart asked the candidate softball questions. "If you want to measure yourself against a comedy show," Stewart said, "be my guest."

Paul Begala tried to put a more conciliatory face on things by pointing out that theirs was a "debate" show. Stewart was having none of it. "I would love to see a real debate show," he said. And went on to tell them that instead of holding politicians' feet to the fire by asking tough question, "you're part of their strategy. You're partisan -- what's the word? -- uh, hacks."

It's almost a cliche by now to talk about "The Daily Show" being more trusted than real newscasts, but Stewart showed why. He pointed out to Carlson that he had asked Kerry if he really were in Cambodia but "I don't care," and when Carlson asked him what he thought about the "Bill O'Reilly vibrator flap," Stewart said, "I don't." It was as concise a demonstration of the triviality of the media as you could hope for.

"I thought you were going to be funny," Carlson said toward the end of the interview. Stewart responded, "No, I'm not going to be your monkey." And that was what was so bracing.

Stewart's "Crossfire" appearance is going to generate talk about how prickly he was, how he wasn't "nice" like he is on "The Daily Show." But prickliness is just what was needed. If you've built your reputation as a satirist pointing out how the media falls down on the job, you're not going to make yourself a part of their charade.

I've heard people talk about "The Daily Show" as an oasis of sanity, a public service. I couldn't agree more. Stewart's appearance on "Crossfire" was another public service. He went on and acted as if the show's purpose really was to confront tough issues, instead of being the political equivalent of pro wrestling. Given a chance to say absolutely what he thought, Stewart took it. He accomplished what almost never happens on television anymore: He made the dots come alive.

-- Charles Taylor

and a big thanks to shelly for providing a link to video of the brouhaha:
http://www.ifilm.com/filmdetail?ifilmid=2652831&htv=12

i'm going to disneyworld!

no - not really. but i am going to florida. boca raton, actually - oh la la. and then when i return, i will jet off to lovely cleveland for two days. but at least there i have a planned trip to the rock and roll hall of fame! hurrah. and i'll be back in time to spend another lovely weekend in covington. though greg was kind enough to point out www.site59.com for me. nice, cheap weekend trips. do check it out.

also just noticed that laura bush will be on larry king tonight. i love laura. i love that she's a former teacher and librarian. and i love her because she is tangible proof that george bush made one good decision in the whole of his life thus far.

ok - off to the airport - ta, friends.

to set the record straight

because it is being so grossly misportrayed around the internet today, here is the excerpt from the NY times magazine article about kerry:

"But when you listen carefully to what Bush and Kerry say, it becomes clear that the differences between them are more profound than the matter of who can be more effective in achieving the same ends. Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely, or at least as long as radical Islam commands fealty in regions of the world. In a rare moment of either candor or carelessness, or perhaps both, Bush told Matt Lauer on the "Today" show in August that he didn't think the United States could actually triumph in the war on terror in the foreseeable future. "I don't think you can win it," he said -- a statement that he and his aides tried to disown but that had the ring of sincerity to it. He and other members of his administration have said that Americans should expect to be attacked again, and that the constant shadow or danger that hangs over major cities like New York and Washington is the cost of freedom. In his rhetoric, Bush suggests that terrorism for this generation of Americans is and should be an overwhelming and frightening reality.

When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apolcalyptic worldview. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Kerry said. "As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.""

("Kerry's Undeclared War," Matt Bai, The New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2004, 44-45.)

please - someone, anyone - explain to me how this is being distorted to suggest that kerry says terrorism is the same as prostitution or gambling. because if someone can do that, then i will say that i learned nothing in all my years studying and teaching the english language.

ny times: bastion of the left or inexplicably high kerry content today?

well, a few of you probably know me well enough to know that my sundays are pretty much filled up by reading my new york times (after, and only after, getting my fill of the sexiest man alive, tim russert, on sunday mornings).

today my sunday was pretty much chock-a-block full of NYT with a brief break mid-afternoon to visit the wallace woods historic home tour (it's nice to live so near to such a cool street of gorgeous old homes).

if anyone else saw today's NYT, it was probably not hard to see that it was all-kerry-all-the time. there was a lengthy article about his relatively humble background and upbringing - which flies in the face of the notion that he, not unlike his sparring mate, was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth. the article makes an interesting case that he benefitted from the wealth (and kindness) of his extended family. and that his relatively modest way of living extended well into his career in the senate when he did not own his own home in either massachusetts or washington and often stayed with friends and supporters in both locations. maybe this makes him seem like a mooch to some - to me, i like to see it as a man of the people, living among his people (haha! even i dont believe that!). but it's an interesting article nonetheless.

more interesting, though, was the extensive article in the NYT magazine (kerry is on the cover as well). the article was the result of three interviews with kerry as well as interviews with various legislators who have served with him as well as some of his campaign advisors. the article was, for the most part, favorable but was not without criticism of kerry. an interesting read, to be sure, and makes BY FAR the strongest case for kerry on foreign policy - and in particular on the war on terror - that i've read anywhere. do read it if you can. if you cant get a copy of it or access it online, let me know. it's good enough that i'll happily share my copy with anyone.

but the presence of both of these rather extensive articles brought to mind a bit of a spirited 'debate' i'd had with a friend lately regarding the NYT supposed liberal bias. somehow, i'd missed this altogether in all my years of being in tune to the world around me. but the appearance of these two articles made me wonder how much effort/pressure the NYT was putting into getting kerry elected.

this thinking raises all kinds of questions:

1) is this wrong? should major journalistic endeavors (be they newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, what have you) take such a firm stand on an issue, a position, a person? does it cease to be journalism if it does take a stand? if so, why?

2) does it mitigate the inherent problem of taking sides if there is a relative equal number of such outlets for each side? does that balance the equation so as to make the playing field somewhat level? does fox news equalize cnn? does the NYT equalize the washington post? newsweek and us news? etc., etc.

3) should we care? some (cynical folks like me) would argue that there is no such thing as truly objective and unbiased reporting anymore - therefore this is a moot point to discuss. for instance, bob woodward's (and carl bernstein's) investigative reporting brought a rather abrupt end to nixon's political career. yet woodward's 'plan of attack' and 'bush at war' were touted and, to some extent, even endorsed by the bush administration. is this a case of his being so unbiased as to be non-partisan (brings down one republican president while extolling the war skills of another?) or has he swung from one extreme of the pendulum to ther other? and i'm willing to concede this might be a bad example because whenever he appears on the chat shows, woodward seems fairly non-partisan, but his most noteworthy accomplishments in his career seem to beg the question.

ahh...sunday night musings on politics while listening to tony bennett. it doesn't get much better than this, folks.

(if anyone is interesting in reliving friday's debate in a retelling done by a salon.com writer, please check out the following story. i feel somewhat bad pointing out that joyce mcgreevy does a better job of keeping me amused than did the actual debaters...quite funny. laugh out loud funny at times (if you're a kerry supporter, that is.).)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/10/09/blow_by_blow/index.html

shoe count: 2 - debate winner: kerry?

yes, two new pairs of shoes made it home with me today. damn lazarus macys.

quick descrip for those who care: one pair of high (4+") camel leather heels (made by steve madden, who i am now convinced makes the absolutely most comfortable heels around today - send me free samples, and i'll be happy to say more, steve madden people) and one pair of lower (3"?) black leather mules with cute little leather bow near toes (made by nine west, ok, so you gotta go cheap sometimes). i'm a suckah for the bows and the heels.

so the debate: who won?

clearly in my mind, i think i know who won, so i was mystified this morning to read accounts that most who were polled felt it was a dead even draw. were these people watching the same debate as me? were they drunk while watching? was i?

i will admit a serious bias: i admire people who are well-spoken, articulate, and who attempt to speak clearly and correctly. old english teachers die hard, you know. and i will also admit a bias in favor of someone who clearly seems presidential.

to me, kerry seems ever the statesman. bush still seems the cowboy. kerry seems worldly and able to move in diverse circles while speaking intelligently and informed about a whole host of issues. i still can't shake the suspicion that bush can barely veer off of the script he's been forced to rehearse for the days leading up to the debate.

some specific points that rubbed me the wrong way:

bush on:
mistakes he's made (come on! 'fess up to something! and don't scapegoat people you've appointed as being 'mistakes'!)

bush on:
stem cell research (does he not get this at all?)

kerry on:
stem cell research (don't just throw out the names of celebrities who are speaking out on behalf of this - talk about the real and widespread benefits this research can achieve)

bush on:
future nominations to the supreme court (did anyone else have a serious case of the icks when he said he wouldn't name names because he wanted them all still to vote for him?)

bush on:
future nominations to the supreme court (dred scott? huh? wha?)

kerry on:
too many topics to list - STOP wasting time refuting the waffling - nail bush on the facts, and the waffling issue goes away by default. i was tired at the end of the debate hearing about how kerry wasn't a waffler - i wanted him to prove that to me with what he said. unfortunately, he blew that opportunity one too many times.

bush on:
winking to someone in the audience. who was he winking at? because when CNN cut to laura in the beginning, she was way in the back, and far out of winking distance. so what was the deal?

bush on:
jumping up to speak/rebut before kerry was done or his time was up. talk about making him look defensive. bad form, george.

bush on:
jumping charlie gibson's shit. what was that about? doesn't he get that that kind of behavior makes him look bad? bad form again, george.

i could go on and on. i'll spare you the boredom. clearly i thought kerry performed better - and while on the issues, i'm still not sure he and i are on the same page - i'm starting to think more and more that i'd like him in the office of president than bush.

others' reactions to the debate?...

pumpkin spice latte: or, how i learned to stop hating my job while almost getting killed

fall is here, my friends!

the pumpkin spice latte has arrived at starbucks!

and the countdown begins until the egg nog latte makes its annual appearance. ah, the nectar of the gods....come on, greg. i know you feel me on this.

so yes, i was having such an utter crap day at work today that i decided to take a little breaky-break and go get some starbucks. only for those of you who know covington, this is not as easy as it sounds since the only starbucks in this area is attached the convention center. so i parked way over yonder near the courthouse and walked over. and on my return, while savoring the pumpkin spice goodness of my latte, i crossed scott st against the light.

yes, my big city livin almost did me in folks. a car came careening around the bend and did not slow down and even seemed to speed up as it approached me while mid-way across the street.

i could see the headlines now: dumb yuppie dies while drinking starbucks on way back to SUV. ah, the cliche that is my life!

but onto the important things: the debate.

yes, tonight is it. the debate bush did not want. i cannot wait to see how this goes.

even mr bill o'reilly said last night on 'the daily show' (yes, he was on both 'the today show' and 'the daily show' - i wonder, was he also on 'the tonight show' too? teehee!) that if bush loses the debate tonight, he'll lose the election.

every once in a while, bill o'reilly says something that makes sense.

handy political/movie tip of the week:

turner classic movies is showing prominent politicians' favorite movies on upcoming thursdays @ 10pm.

last night was john edwards: 'dr strangelove: or, how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' (the best movie title ever)

upcoming thursdays include:

john mccain, 'paths of glory'
joe biden, 'dead poets society' (GO JOE! old delawarians and fellow blue hens die hard.)
orin hatch, 'to kill a mockingbird' (at least he has the right idea about something.)

ok, kids. it's quittin' time here at the quarry.

why dave chappelle is the funniest man alive

if you spend any amount of time watching his show, i know you'll agree.

but i am still doubling over with laughter recalling his recent send-up of 'law and order.'

have you seen it? please tell me you have.

wheeee....just thinking of the rim of the glass and a big old 'FIF'...if you've seen it, you're with me. i'm crying. (shout out here to mr stephen, who is with me in thinking this was some of the funniest shit evah on tv. shelly - i still dont get how you dont agree with us.)

if you've seen this online anywhere, please let me know.

it's not on the comedy central site. though i might have gotten lost in a jon stewart lusty haze whilst looking there.

yes, i am sitting on the fence with bill o'reilly

i mentioned in my first entry that politics is an interest of mine.

that's kind of like saying katie couric likes mascara. or britney spears likes skanky boys (justin excepted, of course).

but so yeah, i like politics.

and seeing as how it's the height of the political season with the election coming up in a mere 27 days, it's all-politics-all-the-time around my abode these days.

and this morning i saw mr bill o'reilly on 'the today show.' he's making the rounds to promote his new book, 'the o'reilly factor for kids.'

and while for many years, i thought bill o'reilly had probably reached the apex of his career whilst hosting 'inside edition,' some friends (shout out to my republican friends!) recently have made me reconsider bill and indeed all of fox news in general. and in the overall spirit of fairness and open-mindedness, i'll admit i watch it fairly often now. (dont ask me to define 'fairly' in that sentence.)

and he's interesting in a provocative and, yes, i'll (grudgingly) admit it, thought-provoking way. my thoughts may sometimes be 'he's a nimrod' or 'what kind of jackass would actually say that?' but still thoughts are being provoked. i'm a literalist. forgive me (shout out to my democratic friends there!).

[note: who saw naomi wolf on the ORF a couple weeks ago? she was a bit of a flake, unfortunately, but it was a most interesting discussion on the role women are playing in iraq and for the US.]

and today was no different (only without the nimrod or jackass comments from me). he's written a book that parents should read and then pass onto their kids and discuss. i'll admit i haven't read it myself yet, but i like his approach even if it seems a bit simple-minded (dont do drugs!, stay away from 'bad' kids!, avoid becoming an alcoholic, and so on). but in theory, i like the idea.

i do not like that bill o'reilly appropriates mr rogers. he admitted this on the show today and even is in a sweater on the cover of the book (at least not a cardigan, though). come on, bill. no one really wants to be your neighbor. heehee.

but matt lauer couldnt let him get away without asking about the election and showing some disbelief that bill claims he's an undecided voter. bill claimed he'd vote for kerry if kerry answered his 15 questions. [for those who dont know, bill interviewed bush and asked 15 questions; bill wants to ask 15 questions to kerry as well. presumably not the same 15.] i must have still been in a 7:45-in-the-morning-haze because i find it hard to believe bill would say he would vote for kerry only if kerry answered his questions.

and matt, my dear sweet matt, tried to get bill to agree to a new years resolution (you go, matt. get a jump start on that new year) - never to say 'shut up' again on air. matt, being a dad himself you know, said in the spirit of writing a book for kids, being a good role model for them and all, bill should use more appropriate language and to speak in a more dignified manner, even when he disagreed.

bill claimed he'd only told people to shut up 3 times on the show. granted, one of those times was to someone who'd just lost a family member in the twin towers, but you know, what's a little harsh language here and there when it's situationally appropriate?

matt claimed they had 29 instances 'shut up' on the show.

maybe we should look at www.factcheck.org or in dick cheyney's world, www.factcheck.com - which, in fact, is george soros's anti-bush site. way to go, dick!!

my first blog entry

welcome to my blog!

i am a woman of many interests and i love to talk about these things - so a blog is a natural for me, right?

here are some main interests of mine:

politics
pop culture
music
shoes
literature
travel
art
shopping
wine (who am i kidding? all alcohol - especially those new dandy fruitty vodkas!)
food (the good, the bad, the ugly)

though i never met a topic i didn't have an opinion on, so i probably won't limit myself here either.