Mom sent me a picture text. The picture was of some unidentifiable round object. I texted back with a question mark.
She called me and said, "He couldn't afford a ring, so he made me a bracelet."
That was half an hour ago. I think my brain is starting to function again.
Exchange in a friend's facebook:
1) Friend posts graphic with the text, "If the top one percent already own wealth equal to ninety percent of the rest of us, then why do they need more wealth before they'll create jobs?"
2) Friend-of-friend replies, "Capitalism works , plain and simple, free markets create wealth and opprotunities for all, not just the wealthy. It is the reason we enjoy he highest standard of living anywhere in the world. And in a free society people are allowed to keep what they earn. The more wealth one creates the more jobs associated with that wealth are made, simple fact"
3) I ask, "How are you defining "highest standard of living"? Do you have a citation?"
4) He replies, "By the amount of wealth and GDP of this country, and while we are not all millionares the overwhelming MAJORITY of americans have homes and cars and are able to take simple vacations. Ancedotal evidence to be sure, but Naomi sometimes its the simplest things that are the truest of all."
5) I spend 5 minutes with Google and Wikipedia and reply, "Ok, I just wasn't sure what metric you were using. By the UN's Human Development Index, we're fourth. According to the International Monetary Fund, we're 15th in GDP per capita (nominal) and 7th in GDP per capita (using purchasing power parity). And we're 36th in life expectancy and 45th by literacy rate. But if you're using a definition by which we're at the top, that's cool."
I am not much looking forward to what comes next. Some people do not respond well to facts, no matter how gently presented. I just hope he continues to be somewhat condescending, rather than getting angry, because the friend whose facebook this is doesn't deserve it. (One may well ask, if you don't want an argument, why did you say something in the first place? And the answer is, sometimes I just can't take the stupid anymore.)
I have been watching My So-Called Life on Netflix. I missed it the first time around, for the most part. I knew who the characters were, and I vaguely remember an episode where Rickie gets kicked out of his house, and I'm pretty sure I thought Jared Catalano was cute. But that's it.
Watching it now, when that was more than half my life ago... well, it makes me nostalgic, for starters. Angela Chase is pretty much exactly my age. I don't get that a lot - I'm not quite Gen X, and not quite millennial, and I don't get a lot of media targeted right at me. But it came out in 1994, and Angela was 15. I was also 15 that year. The music, the clothes... I remember that. (Well, not Rayanne's clothes, but mostly everyone else's.) I saw an episode where a kid gets a hall pass to go to the bathroom, and the "pass" is this big piece of... something. And we had hall passes like that too, that were huge so they could be seen from a distance and not easily made off with.
And I remember what it was like to be 15. I wouldn't go back for anything. I don't think there's a single kid I haven't wanted to hug at least once. I can't help wondering how it would have been if I'd seen it at the time. All I know for sure is that I wouldn't have cared about the parents nearly as much as I do now. Would it have been inspiring? Would I have felt like it really got me? Would I have taken it too much to heart, the way I over-identified with the characters in Pamela Dean's Tam Lin? I'm not sure if it was a great tragedy that I never saw it, or if I dodged a bullet. I had some proto-Rayannes when I was 14, but I mostly went the Sharon route in high school. Maybe I was better off not getting any ideas.
I'm also made deeply uncomfortable by some of the sexual dynamics. I'm sure there was a ton of that at my high school - the rumors, the sexualized gossip, that kind of thing. But I was never aware of it. I never had that realization so many girls and young women have, that you can never just be anymore, there's always this filter over how you'll be perceived. And I watch it happening to the girls in this show: all of a sudden you're just a pair of boobs, or you're that girl who puts out, or you're not any of those things and therefore you don't have any value, and you're not you anymore, and it's heartbreaking.
I'm about one-third of the way through. I could chug the whole thing in less than a day, but I think I'm going to parcel it out. I've got to give myself some kind of break.
Possibly this has already been discussed to death. But I didn't get around to watching the recent BBC Sherlock series until relatively recently, so I missed all the fannish discussion and digestion.
I like it a lot. There's a lot to talk about. But there is one little niggling detail that is just eating at me.
In the third episode, with all the explosives and things - the old lady's wired up. And she starts to say something she shouldn't, and the sniper shoots her and sets off the explosives, and it all goes boom. So far so good (in a manner of speaking.)
But then we see Holmes and Watson watching a news story on tv about the explosion. And the story says it was a gas leak. How can that be? I can buy the explosion on Baker Street being made to look like a gas leak. But you can't tell me that a woman could be covered with explosives and somehow the police can't tell the difference between that and a gas leak. On top of which, by that point Lestrade, at least, knows what's really going on, and nothing is ever said of the police actively keeping the real story out of the news.
So what the hell? Did a wizard do it?