Random Questions

Random Question: Am I the only one who doesn't care about Mark Sanford's infidelity? 

Random Observation (related): Why is it that we never hear about it when Democrats screw around outside the bonds of holy wedlock (coughJohn"Who'sYourDaddy?"Edwardscough), yet when a Republican commits adultery, well...the world ends and real news gets bumped off the front page.  I, for one, am sick of this double standard.  Either report it equally, or DON'T REPORT IT AT ALL.  

I really DON'T CARE whose chocolate he was dipping his peanut butter into.  I DON'T CARE.  That's HIS business.  It only would matter if he BROKE A LAW while doing so.  Which he didn't. Unlike some ex-presidents. 

so...SHUT UP ABOUT IT. 

Daniel Day-Lewis in a...musical?

Eh? 

Not so sure about this one. 

Will say that he looks good, though.  Very, very good.  Positively yummy.

What ever happened to the Hare Krishnas? 

Why do you think so many authors nowadays think it necessary to write about the dreams their characters have?  You know, besides the fact that it's a good foreshadowing tool. Is this some sort of necessary item one must include for character development nowadays?  Does it strike you as somewhat lazy, like it does me? Dreams are passive.  They happen to you; you don't have to make them happen.  As an author, that means there isn't any action required, nothing you actually have to make your characters endure, but rather you get all the added benefits of character depth while simply relating your character's subconscious wanderings.  Again, it seems lazy.

And, as a literary tool, it's getting kind of old, ya dig? Because, it seems to me, more and more authors are resorting to this trick.

I'm a practical chick.  I have a hard time understanding why people think dreams are so fascinating. A friend once told me that he would never write about two things: his children or his dreams---because these two things were always more interesting to you than they were to other people.  While I would disagree with him about the former, I wholeheartedly agree with him about the latter---just because I know I wouldn't want to subject anyone to my dreams. They're certainly not fascinating.  If they were, I might remember them, but as it is, I generally don't, unless they're repeated as much as a Law and Order episode on cable, so I can finally get the gist of the storyline. Neither do I think my subconscious is trying to tip me off as to what my "issues" really are through my dreams.   Dreams are just dreams---but they have value nonetheless.  Be they sweet or nightmarish, they belong to that world on the other side of consciousness; they belong to the world of otherness, to the world where things that aren't so readily explained---and that, in my estimation, is where they should stay. To dissect them, whether the purpose is to search for psychological clues for personal betterment, or, if you're an author, to use them to further develop your character, seems to cheapen them in my estimation. 

Am I off the map with this, my devoted Cake Eater readers? Or are dreams really that fascinating? 

So, anyone else find it just a wee bit ironic, that after the Chosen One rambled on and on during the election about how Afghanistan is the war we're supposed to be fighting, that when he gets his chance to solve the problem, on top of the two divisions he's already sending in, he settles for sending in 4,000 military trainers, to train and hundreds of civilians "advisers"?  That this is his solution to the problem, when he'd sneer if any other NATO country offered up this kind of paltry help?

Yeah, I know.  I don't really find it all that ironic either. 

So, my wonderful father every now and again has suggestions for what I'm supposed to do with my blog.  Generally speaking, anyone who tells me what to write on my blog gets shafted, big time, but...it's my dad.  I have to humor him a bit.  Today's suggestion centered around grammar.  And because I, apparently, seem to be a grammar wench, this should be a task uniquely suited to my sensitivites.  His idea?

I should document every time Obama uses 'a' when 'an' would be appropriate. 

I'm not kidding, either.  This is my father's idea of scintillating reading. 

Now, I didn't lecture him on how spoken English can, and usually is, much different than written English.  How many people say, for instance, remember to put the adverb in front of the verb, like you would with an adjective in front of a noun? People dangle participles all the freakin' time.  And instead of saying, "I feel badly," we say, "I feel bad."  Is this lazy?  Yes.  But that's what you do, otherwise we'd all sound like we had a stick up our asses and/or were this guy.  We don't speak the way we're supposed to write. Very few people can pull it off and not sound incredibly pompous and the only thing that saved Buckley from that fate was that he had sailed into international waters to experience some herb.  It's just that simple. 

But, according to my father, this is apparently something he should be called on.  If W. was hung out to dry over the "nuclear" thing, Obama deserves the same treatment, that these two things are on the same level.  I was hesitant to jump on this particular train because I didn't know if it was a regional thing---as in a Hawaiian thing.  Which wouldn't be very fair, because Bush's mispronunciation of "nuclear" was a regional thing.  Obama's obviously not speaking pidgin, but maybe he did, or hung out with people who did, during his disadvantaged youth and those habits stuck.  I don't know. 

So, finally, here's your random question of the day: should someone---and not necessarily me, my devoted Cake Eater readers, if you know what's good for you---be keeping track of Obama's 'a's and 'an's, and when he doesn't use the correct article?   

What say you, my devoted Cake Eater readers?  (and remember to be nice when you reply.  This is MY FATHER we're talking about.)

Why is it that I, for the love of God, cannot figure out what my liver can handle post-chemo?

I don't understand it.  Really and truly.

I'm not a lush.  (Anymore, that is.) But I cannot figure out why I can handle cherry martini after cherry martini and not be affected---with no hangover the next day---yet, if there's too much wine, I'm loaded.  And I'll pay for it the next day. 

Before chemo, it was the other way round.  What did those effin' drugs do to my liver?  I don't get it. 

Am I the only one who is seriously annoyed with the increasing usage of double negatives, particularly where this God-awful stimulus bill is involved?

As in, "we can't afford not to take action."  That was courtesy of Arlen Specter in today's WaPo, but I can't be bothered to link.  See?  Double negative.  How about this?  "We must take action.  We cannot afford to wait any longer."  See?  Never mind that the message is erroneous in the extreme.  This works just fine, and without any grammatical boo-boos.  Or is good grammar just too passe these days?

I lay the fault at the wingtips of Chandler Bing.  He brought this plague of double negatives upon us.  He's got some 'splainin to do! 

Why is it, that whenever I buy something from Amazon I can never find the log off button for my account? 

So, it's 2009. 

Where's my freakin' flying car already, eh?