Yes folks, I lost power in the wee hours of the morning. But, unlike previous times, repairs were swift and life is sweet. After all, here I am, online again.
Twas the day after…
[NOTE: Another recycled poem, slightly edited this time.]
Twas the day after Christmas, when all through the house,
Creatures were stirring and starting to grouse.
Torn wrappings were strewn round the floor, what a mess!
It’s time for the gift returns, bringers of stress.
Full stomachs were grumbling from too much good eating,
Yet leftovers beckoned “Continue the treating!”
And bloggers returned to their usual whining,
So I’ll stop the rhyming and start the opining.
Bracing for a blizzard
How does one get ready for the big stormstorm that’s predicted for the Northeast?
First thing to do is to accept it. Then, make sure there’s enough food in the place—although after the almost nonstop eating fest of the last week or so, a little fasting might be a good thing. Next, get the flashlight and the candles out, in case there’s a repeat of the great power outage of 2008. Finally, wait, with peace in your heart.
Where I live, the streets get cleared after a blizzard very efficiently and quickly, and things are usually moving again in almost no time. A far cry from my youth in New York, when we lived on an unimportant side street with such low priority that we could wait days before a plow appeared. Here, it’s also beautiful after a snow—very beautiful indeed, especially at this time of year, when the classic New England homes are tastefully decorated in classic New England style for the holidays, and the evergreens get heavy with snow, especially if there’s been little wind to go with it.
This time, though, those evergreens will remain green and uncovered; there’ll be no shortage of wind. That’s what the word “blizzard” means—a whole lotta snow plus a whole lotta wind:
To be a blizzard, a snow storm must have winds in excess of 56 km/h (35 mph).
Additionally, blizzards must reduce visibility to 400 metres (1,300 ft) or less and must last for a prolonged period of time ”” typically three hours or more.
As for great blizzards of the past, I well remember this one. Fortunately, I was not among those stranded motorists on Route 128, some of whom died because their exhausts got covered and the carbon monoxide backed into their cars. I was safe at home hunkered down with my husband and a fireplace.
Unfortunately, however, I was stranded on a Greyhound bus with a seat near front row and center for this biggee. My bus and I were somewhere in Indiana; I’d been on my way to a family wedding where I was scheduled to be a bridesmaid. In those days, forecasting the weather was a great deal more primitive than now, and nobody foresaw the scope of this storm at the time I joined a ragtag group of people who stepped onto that bus and filled every single seat.
I did have the foresight, however, to wear multiple layers of clothing, and so I was very warm. I must have been hungry, too, but I don’t remember that. I chiefly recall an interminable night of sitting with my Intro to Botany text open on my lap, reading the same paragraphs about xylem and phloem over and over again and trying vainly to absorb the information, while somebody’s pesky two-year-old roamed the aisles unsupervised, his copiously running nose unattended and dripping with the cold.
How long did the bus sit there without moving? I don’t know, but my memory tells me it was at least 24 hours. Did I make the wedding? Yes.
HCR as Christmas present
In Time, Kate Pickert wonders whether the health care reform bill, which passed the Senate last Christmas Eve in an all-night session, has turned out to be a bad Christmas present:
…[S]ome Democrats may be wondering if, politically, the Senate passage of health reform has turned out to more like a lump of coal for them.
Nice metaphor, but I think it’s a bit backwards. It’s the American people who received the lump of coal in the stocking. And it was the Democrats who were the Bad Santas.
A blogger’s Christmas
On Christmas Day—blog?
I’d rather have grog,
Or maybe eggnog,
Then go walk the dog.
Or watch a Yule Log,
And eat like a hog,
Then go for a jog.
Blogging’s a bog.
My mind’s in a fog,
Or maybe agog
From much dialogue.
I’ll return to the slog
Tomorrow, and blog.
[NOTE: This is another recycled poetic effort, much like yesterday’s. I added the links and the photo, but that’s all I changed.
Today’s rhyme was apparently originally written on Christmas of 2007; I came across it while searching for previous posts with the word “Christmas” in them. I say “apparently” because, when I read it today, I realized I had absolutely no recollection of ever having seen it before, much less of having written it.
That’s what you get when you blog for six years, as I have. I remember a lot of these posts, but a number of them—and a not insignificant number, at that—have long departed from my memory.
I hope you’re having a wonderful Christmas!]
‘Twas the blogger’s night before Christmas
Here’s a previous poetic effort of mine, back without popular demand:
‘TWAS THE BLOGGER’S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the ”˜sphere
Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near.
Their laptops were turned off and all put away
The bloggers were swearing to take off the day.
Their children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of extra time danced in their heads
With a father or mom not distracted by writing
No posts to compose, and no links to be citing.
But we know that vows were just meant to be broken
And the vows of a blogger can be just a token.
There’s always a chance that some sort of temptation
Will rise up to make them of fleeting duration.
For instance, there might be found, under the tree
An Apple; well, what better sight could there be?
And who could neglect it and wait the whole day?
It has to be tried out, one just can’t delay.
Or maybe somewhere there’s a fast-breaking story
Important, and complex, and covered with glory.
It can’t be ignored, there’s really no choice,
So add to the din every blogger’s small voice.
And then there are some who may just like to rhyme
(I’m one who at times must confess to this crime),
And it’s been quite a while since Clement Clarke Moore
Wrote his opus (though authorship’s been claimed by Gore)””
So it seems about time it be newly updated
And here’s my grand effort””aren’t you glad you all waited?
Forgive if it sounds a bit awkward to read.
Writing, I set a new record for speed.
I had to get under the wire and compose it
Before Christmas Day. Now it’s time that I close it.
But let me exclaim (or, rather, I’ll write)
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!
Is Krauthammer right?
Charles Krauthammer seems to think that the legislative achievements of the last couple of weeks—the tax “cut”[sic] deal , the repeal of DADT, and the approval of START—have changed Obama’s fortunes with the American public, and that the playing field has been leveled between him and the new Congress.
I think that that the voters are fickle, but not that fickle; they may have short memories, but not that short. Nor (unlike pundits such as Krauthammer or obsessive-compulsive bloggers) are most of them paying the sort of close attention that would make such things matter. The biggees of the economy and high unemployment rate, as well as Obamacare, have hit the public where it hurts and remain to be resolved.
It certainly could end up that Obama’s star rises significantly and stays risen, and that he’s re-elected in 2012. The latter especially depends on who the Republicans manage to nominate to oppose him. But the outcome will depend on much more than the last couple of weeks.
I’m a bit puzzled as to why the extension of the tax policies of the Bush administration, against the oft-stated desires of President Obama, is seen as a victory for him rather than a victory for Republicans in Congress and an Obama capitulation. Perhaps it’s merely because it makes Obama seem more centrist.
As for that Republican Congress, although I’ve expressed my own wariness about their present and future actions, I’m also puzzled by the many comments around the blogosphere and in the press to the effect of “they’ve just been elected in a big landslide, and see how quickly they fold!” I would like to remind everyone that all this legislation was passed by the old Congress, not the new.
Carrying a torch for Ava
Another relaxing but time-wasting YouTube session led me to these clips from the Fifties movie “Show Boat,” not a favorite of mine at all. Ava Gardner, who played Julie, has quite a few songs to sing, and they were all dubbed by someone named Annette Warren.
You be the judge of who’s better; I know what I think. Here are visuals by Ava and voice by Annette, in a famous torch song from the movie:
And here’s Ava, voice and body together at last:
Ava got the last laugh on the studios, however:
Gardner’s vocals were included on the soundtrack album for the movie, and in an autobiography written not long before her death, Gardner reported she was still receiving royalties from the release.
Ava Gardner was widely thought to be one of the most beautiful Hollywood actresses of her time. She lived large and partied with vigor. She was said to be the love of third husband Frank Sinatra’s life, as he was of hers, although their marriage only lasted six years (a record for her; her other two legal unions only lasted a year each).
And speaking of torch songs, she apparently had a lasting effect on Frank:
Gardner was not only the love of his life but also the inspiration for one of his most personal songs, “I’m a Fool to Want You“, which Sinatra (who received a co-writing credit for the song) recorded twice, toward the end of his contract with Columbia Records and during his years on Capitol Records. (“It was Ava who taught him how to sing a torch song”, Sinatra arranger Nelson Riddle was once quoted as saying.)
Riddle doesn’t seem to have indicated whether said “teaching” was in the heartache Gardner caused Sinatra, or whether there was some vocal coaching involved as well. But the clips show that Ava was no slouch at torch songs herself.
Census revelations
Michael Barone points out that the new census reveals that states with lower taxes have higher growth.
No surprise there. Although I will point out that several of those states are in warm climes, and they would not have much growth no matter how low their taxes were if it weren’t for the ubiquity of air conditioning.
Barone also observes that immigration has slowed down and may be reversed. I’m not sure whether he means legal or illegal immigration; most likely he means immigration in general. And that red states have gained a total of six representatives, whereas blue ones have lost the same number.
More on that couple…and others
Yesterday’s post on the couple who met while married to others, fell in love, left their spouses, got married, and then had the whole thing written up in the NY Times generated a lot of chat in the comments section on this blog. And many of the commenters predicted that their new and “improved” marriage will have a very short duration.
The odds are that this is correct: statistics on second marriages are not good, with 60% of them ending in divorce, a higher percentage than first marriages. And it stands to reason, doesn’t it? The people involved have sometimes—as in the case of our Times second-time-around lovers—demonstrated their propensity to have affairs. What’s more, even if no infidelity has been involved in the dissolution of the first marriage, those in second marriages have already learned that, whatever grief they may have endured in the first breakup, life went on and love entered the scene again.
But I’ve seen a lot of divorces and remarriages over my lifetime, and a number of the people I know have had an experience roughly similar to that of the Times featured couple, without the publicity. That is, they had an affair while married to one person and then divorced that spouse and married their lover. Perhaps the people I know are an atypical bunch, but all of those second marriages have endured for several decades so far, and look to be on track to endure till death do them part.
I’m not one to advocate this course of action. I certainly think affairs are wrong, and I’m proud to say that while I was married I never had one. But too many times I’ve seen people trapped in deeply unhappy marriages contracted when young and foolish, to a person with whom they had little in common emotionally or otherwise. And then I’ve seen that person meet another with whom they shared so much—including not just sexual attraction, but joy and companionship and interests—and visibly blossomed in that person’s company.
Was there grief and pain, especially for those innocents, the children? Yes, absolutely. Was that grief and pain worse for those children than they would have endured had the original bad marriages continued? I don’t know, but I don’t necessarily think so. Were the first spouses hurt? You bet, although several of them (not all) have remarried and seem quite happy now.
Do we have a “right” to happiness? Not exactly; not a right. But we are constructed to pursue it, especially in matters so deeply personal, and many of us will do so no matter what the moralists say.
Divorce is now accepted and commonplace, and those two things go together. Society used to frown far more mightily on divorce, and divorcing couples were therefore often ostracized. This had, as one might expect, a chilling effect on the divorce rate. But many people were still unfaithful, and I have no idea whether straying occurred more often or less often back then.
As commenter Tatyana mentioned here, there is a group of John Updike short stories about suburban infidelity, divorce, and remarriage, some of them in the “Maples” series. I read these long ago and have always remembered them because they struck me as reflecting the almost overwhelming complexity of human beings, with their desires and their moral dilemmas, their passions and their guilt. Although Updike was apparently using his own life as model, he was hard on the lovers and compassionate to those left behind, those first spouses and the kids, and didn’t whitewash the pain they endured. In the end, as I recall, his remarried lovers often found themselves nostalgic for the family they’d left behind, and laden with a fair amount of regret.
Sometimes we just end up exchanging one problem for another of similar magnitude, sometimes through boredom and inattention and self-centeredness. But sometimes the exchange is for something much much better. And yet we must make our decisions without knowing which one it will be, or how much those we hurt will suffer, or whether in the end they will be happier too (a not-unheard-of result, as well).
Are we just kidding ourselves when we say everything will be all right, and go forward to do what we want to do anyway? After all, life must be lived, and decisions made, without knowing the effect they will ultimately have. Even looking back afterward, with the perspective of years—as I do with my friends, long ensconced in those second marriages—it often can be very difficult to really know the results and to evaluate them. Fortunately or unfortunately, we don’t have matched lives to compare this one with as controls.
Let’s do away with the filibuster, saith the Democrats
This is exactly what I’ve been anticipating, ever since I realized that the Senate would probably remain in Democrat hands.
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says not to worry. But I’m hardly as sanguine as he on the possibilities for control of both houses in 2012, or what Republicans would do if they had it.
As I wrote before, there’s always the House.
Any circumventing of the filibuster this way is short-sighted. What one party can do to become the overbearing majority, another can do just as well. But I think the philosophy is to grab as much power as you can while you can, because the other party will do the same when it can.
The lovers who left—and were featured in the NY Times
A number of years ago, the NY Times added a special feature to its previously rather staid engagement and wedding announcement pages. It was called “Vows,” and featured an in-depth look at a particular marrying couple.
Usually the stories have been cute and anecdotal and sometimes even a bit heartwarming, if you happen to be in the mood for that sort of thing. But not the story of the romance and then wedding of Carol Anne Riddell and John Partilla, who left their respective first spouses (the two couples had been best friends) for each other.
The details appear here. Both couples had several young children. The two lovers-turned-bride-and-groom swear they did not have a sexual affair until they left their first marriages, although they did fall in love and declared that fact to each other before they announced it to their mates.
Mr. Padilla seems to regret the publicity from the Times piece because of the firestorm of criticism it has provoked; Ms. Riddell apparently has no regrets. A great deal of the negative reaction comes from people who say they believe a person should stick with a spouse, even if unhappy, if there are young children involved. Others disagree, pointing out that if people are profoundly unhappy in their marriages it’s not good for the children either.
As for me, I think it’s dreadful that this couple and the Times chose to air this particular story publicly. What were they thinking of? Certainly not their children’s or ex-spouses’ privacy or pain. My guess is that they were so in love with each other that they figured that everybody loves a lover. But everybody doesn’t–at least not these lovers.
But what do I think they should have done, given the situation of meeting as friends and then falling in love—and assuming they are telling the truth about refraining from an affair? It depends on the circumstances of their first marriages.
I’ve seen a lot of marriages. I’ve observed those in which spouses have stayed together in an atmosphere so poisonous and destructive that I believe the children end up suffering more than if their parents had broken up instead. And yet I’ve seen marriages that are abandoned for what seem like frivolous and temporary reasons, in which the children suffer greatly and the spouses grow to regret their move, and the whole thing seems needless and self-indulgent and narcissistic. I’ve seen divorces where the children don’t seem to suffer at all, although these are quite rare and tend to feature grown-up offspring rather than actual children.
In the Riddle/Padilla story, the Times and the couple are mum (fortunately) on the details of just how bad—or good—their first marriages were, or whether abuse or substances were involved, or how long and how hard they tried to work on staying together. We really don’t know, although that hasn’t stopped people from guessing.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s a sequel to this post that expands on some of its themes, including those raised in the comments section.]