Thursday, December 30, 2010

Alright so JUSTIN BLACKMON blew up last night and we went 2-1 with Maryland and OK State winning and Baylor taking the L. 2ndnShort stands at 7-4.


Let's get the betting going


12PM - Army vs Southern Methodist - The reason this game is so early is because nobody cares. SMU's QB Kyle Pardon is having a pretty good year and he should help the Mustangs take this one home.

SMU 21 Army 13

320PM - Kansas State vs Syracuse - This game will be played at Yankee stadium and should be a good one. Both teams had decent years and are evenly matched. I am taking Kansas State because they have Daniel Thomas at RB, and he is a stub. K State pounds the ball to victory in this one.

Kansas State 24 Syracuse 18

640PM - North Carolina vs Tennessee - Down year for Tennessee and decent year for the heels. I think that TJ Yates leads UNC to victory tonight. UNC does have some goes suspended but no big parts. Look for UNC to pull out a close one.

UNC 27 Tennessee 23

10PM - Nebraska vs Washington - Nebraska had a good year and Jake Locker was a huge disappointed. Hopefully Locker can play well tonight and make this one close but I doubt it. Nebraska wins this one big.

Nebraska 34 Washington 18







title: Here on Earth


author: Alice Hoffman


genre: fiction


published: 1997

source: purchased copy


pages: 309


first line: Tonight, the hay in the fields is already brittle with frost, especially to the west of Fox Hill, where the pastures shine like stars.

rated: 3 1/2 out of 4










Here on Earth is one of those books that I enjoyed reading but disliked most of the characters within the story. It is also reminiscent of Bronte's Wuthering Heights.





March Murray returns to her hometown in New England with her fifteen year old daughter Gwen. Her childhood housekeeper and nanny Judith, has passed away and March comes back to her hometown for the funeral and to get Judith's affairs in order.
March's scientist husband Richard, who is from the same hometown, stays behind in California unable to come on the trip due to his work.



When she arrives at her childhood home, old memories resurface and March begins to think about her first love, Hollis. She wonders if she will see him again now that she is back in town.





As a child, Hollis was rescued by March's father and brought to live with her family. Hollis was destitute and March's family became his own. However, Hollis was always withdrawn and sullen, only getting along with March and her father and becoming enemies with March's bother, Alan.
As time passes, Hollis and March fall in love.





Jealously and resentment mostly on Hollis' part, broke the two up when March was just eighteen and Hollis ended up leaving town with no word on his whereabouts. He left March depressed and heartbroken, often staring out her bedroom window in hopes of seeing Hollis return. The two never forgot each other. Three years later, Hollis returns to town a wealthy man, but March has already married Richard and moved to California. Hollis winds up marrying Richard's sister.


Does it remind you of Wuthering Heights yet?





Now that March is back in town she is desperate to see Hollis. And when she does, old flames reignite and the two are once again inseperable.









Like I said I enjoyed reading Here on Earth. It's got an interesting storyline, and Hoffman's writing is lyrical as usual. The sleepy town in New England almost has a haunting air about it, especially when the author describes the woods and the towns history.

A person could get lost up here. After enough wrong turns he might find himself in the Marshes, and once he was there, a man could wander forever among the minnows and the reeds, his soul struggling to find its way long after his bones had been discovered and buried on the crest of the hill, where the wild blueberries grow.






On the other hand, I couldn't help but be judgemental with the characters choices and thought processes. Hollis, modeled after Heathcliff, was too selfish and sulky for my taste, plus a tad disturbed. He was also very 'full of himself', always expecting March to come looking for him.


There's a part in the story where a very pregnant March calls Hollis on the phone and he insists she leave California and her husband to come back to him. When she tells him she can't he replies, "If you loved me, you'd do it". People who utter those words need to be smacked. So as soon Hollis said that, he got under my skin.




Another thing is the infidelity within the storyline. The book mostly centers around March's being unfaithful to her husband. I kept wondering if she had completely lost her mind. At one point she even admits that all she cares about is Hollis and nothing else, not even her family. I wonder why Hoffman set out to create these unlikeable main characters? She obviously modeled these people after Catherine and Heathcliff, but when I read Wuthering Heights I didn't dislike them. March and Hollis, on the other hand...


I do think this book would make a great book club selection, there's plenty to discuss within the storyline.





So as I said, I couldn't help but be judgemental with these characters, which in turn made it impossible for me to connect with them while reading.


But then again, love can be screwed up, and people make bad choices, but life goes on. Nothing is black and white. This is what this story was about for me. These two selfish people loved each other for most of their lives, no matter how screwed up that was, they were forever connected. As self-centered as they were, I kept thinking they deserved each other.



I felt bad for March's daughter Gwen who is witness to her mother's infidelity. She watches helplessly as her family is being torn apart by March's poor choices. She plays a central part in the story and I was hoping things would turn out alright for her in the end.


I also felt bad for March's husband Richard, who she simply brushes off like yesterday's news.

One other thing I should mention is that Hoffman leaves the ending open. The reader can come up with their own conclusions.




In the midst of all these screwed up relationships and unlikeable characters, Hoffman's writing had me glued to the page. Here are a few of my favorite tidbits.



March doesn't cry now; she's far too busy for anything like that. Still, there are mornings when she wakes with tears in her eyes. That's when she knows she's been dreaming about him. And although she never remembers her dreams, there's always the scent of grass on her pillow, as if the past were something that could come back to you, if you only wished hard enough, if you were brave enough to call out his name.

p. 30






It is sometimes possible to look at a person and see inside, although this happens so rarely it's always a shock, like a form of electricity traveling from one soul to another. It can only be glimpsed for an instant, but in that instant you can see the core of a person...

p.125





Unfinished business always comes back to haunt you, and a man who swears he'll love you forever isn't finished with you until he's done.

p. 132






There is no measuring love, other than all or nothing or that space in between. This is all, she sees that in him. This is more than everything. Could she live without this, what he's offering to her? Could she turn away and settle for anything less?

p. 164




Here on Earth was an Oprah's Book Club selection in 1998. I'd also like to mention there is explicit language and a few sex scenes in the book, not that it was overly done, but I know some readers would like to know if it's in there. It is.



And on a final note, I'm re-reading Wuthering Heights as we speak. It was a favorite of mine when I first read it years ago, I wonder how I'll feel about it the second time around.







The voters didn’t give them a mandate to turn this country into a right-wing tyranny or a theocracy…they just wanted jobs


A morally bankrupt politician wants to turn us even further to the right…meet a morally Neutered Newt Gingrich



And amazingly, with the behavior and tactics that can only be classified as sabotage and treason, they have blocked any and all efforts to turn the economy around…because Republicans figured that if the American people are miserable and enduring hard economic times they will turn around and vote Republican…

They are forgetting something here…a lot of the voters are easily misled and gullible that is a fact…but then there is a significant part of our population that is well informed and on to the antics of the Republican politicians…they will never vote Republican.

And if you add in another factor: that the Republicans have repudiated all minorities, then you may have a very solid opposition that will take them to the cleaners come next election; particularly if they continue to obstruct and delay legislation in the next two years as they have done in the last two.


Greg Dworkin says:

“In fact, Obama’s approval was at 49 yesterday in Gallup’s tracker, with Congress at 13. No wonder conservatives are upset that they’re not feeling the momentum. The public never wanted what they’re selling, they just wanted jobs. And those approval numbers and this fact are worth remembering as we move to next year’s battles: Barack Obama, and not Mitch McConnell or John Boehner, is the most popular politician in D.C. “

Lastly, the Republicans are acting as if they had no part on creating the mess we are in. There too the American public is not going to let them off the hook. At least folks like myself will remind them every day of their miserable lives that they got us into this mess and are not doing anything to correct it…just the opposite, and then on top of that they want to benefit the richest of the very rich by extending tax cuts…honestly, these assholes have a lot of gall.


Shocker: Obama to give America back to Indians

A secret U.N. plot revealed: First, they'll take Manhattan

Guys and gals, this is along the same lines as “death panels” and “show us your birth certificate”. One more attempt to discredit the President and spread the untruths and rumors.

SOURCE: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/28/obama_indians/

Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Joseph Medicine Crow shows a drum to President Barack Obama during a reception for recipients and their families in the Blue Room of the White House on Aug. 12, 2009.

Congratulations, 2010, for fitting in one more completely insane made-up right-wing scandal: Barack Obama is going to give Manhattan back to the Indians! Also the U.N. will help, because grrrr, the U.N.!

Earlier this month, Obama said the U.S. would support the U.N.'s "Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People," a non-legally binding promise to finally treat indigenous peoples with some small amount of decency after hundreds of years of the government murdering them and expelling them from their homes and forcibly relocating them to barren desert ghettos and now just letting them live in conditions of appalling, abject poverty. Bush refused to sign on to this, because, I dunno, it was from the U.N., and it might lead to frivolous lawsuits, or something? It's a non-binding Declaration that basically says "we will be nice to indigenous people," there's no good reason not to support it.

But because hysterical right-wingers are hysterical right-wingers, they are seizing on this document as yet more proof that Obama wants to forcibly redistribute all the wealth, from productive hard-working Real Americans to swarthy welfare leeches. Take it away, World Net Daily!

President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan.

The issue is causing alarm among legal experts.

Oh, I bet it is. WND-founder Joseph Farah has a little column where he repeats this insane story, but then he quotes some egg-head professor who says that all the tribes want is some "open lands/spaces for repurchase," which doesn't really sound like "giving back" Manhattan to the Native Americans.

I say if you're gonna do it, do it right and actually give New York back to the Delaware Indians! I'd rather be ruled by them than by Bloomberg and Albany.

(Also why don't Scalia-style Constitutional originalists ever insist that America honor its various broken treaties with all the Indians whose lands we stole as we systematically removed and massacred them? I know that would entail giving them back the entirety of Oklahoma, among lots of other amusing things, but the supremacy of treaties is in the damn Constitution! Although I guess Article Six, with its federal supremacy clause and its no religious test talk, has always been the article that right-wingers are not particularly enthusiastic about.)

In all honesty, I think that the Native Americans, particularly the tribe’s elders and leaders have enough common sense and compassion to be able to run the country much better than the Democrats or Republicans…certainly a hell of a lot better than Republicans.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

I recently came across two thoughts on Beauty: today I saw a video of Denis Dutton, past philosophy of art professor at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Beauty and evolution .....



And yesterday I read an essay on Beauty and the problem of evil by Alejandro García-Rivera, past professor of Theology at The Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, in the book Theological aesthetics after von Balthasar by Oleg V. Bychkov and James Fodor. Here's the beginning of it ....

***********************

Chapter 13 - On A New List of Aesthetic Categories

Taking Well of God

I have been asked many times, "What has brought me to seek theology in the arts?" The answer to that question lies within the core of my own questions about my faith and the God that is the subject of that faith. How shall I speak of a good and mighty God when all around me -- indeed in my own life -- I see and experience overwhelming human tragedy, conflict, and suffering. At these times I realize that I cannot ground such talk on the truth of God's revelation or on the goodness of God's intentions. There needs to be a different starting place, a place that addresses the question of suffering in a way that does not take me into the thicket of explaining that God is good and all-powerful, and yet also allows such suffering to happen.

Gustavo Gutiérrez made an important observation about theology in his illuminating study of the book of Job. Gutiérrez points out that at the end of the narrative, God is pleased with Job not because he spoke correctly but because he spoke well of God. Indeed, God rebukes Job's theologian-friends precisely because they try to explain away Job's suffering by insisting that God is good and powerful. Job, on the other hand, insists that his suffering is not consistent with such a view of a good and powerful God: therefore, God has been unjust to him. God thus praises Job for not succumbing to easy explanations of God's intentions. Job's friends spoke correctly about God's power and goodness, not well about God in Godself. Gutiérrez's insight into the book of Job has been of crucial interest to me as a theologian trying to understand human suffering in the light of a belief in a good and powerful God.

Yet Gutiérrez's insight leaves contemporary theology in something of a quandary. Contemporary theology continues focusing its energy on trying to speak correctly of God -- in terms of the truth about God's nature or the implications of God's power -- rather than concerning itself with speaking well of God. Whether it be fundamentalist Biblical literacy or Catholic dogmatism, Latin American liberationism or postmodern skepticism, contemporary theology has failed to heed God's whirlwind's revelation to Job. The result is that genuine talk about Job's God remains immensely difficult. Authentic talk of God in a suffering world, I contend, is to be found more in how well we speak of God rather than in how truthful or morally correct our talk of God happens to be.

But what is the starting point of a theology that speaks well of God? Where does one begin speaking well of God? Let me suggest that it is neither in the sense of the True nor in the sense of the Good, but in the sense of Beauty. Pseudo-Dionysius put it clearly. The closer we come to naming the reality that is God, the more the importance of our ordinary language is made evident. As our language approaches the mystery of the divine reality, it begins to break up and enter a new mode. Ordinary speech becomes extraordinary poetry, and extraordinary poetry shifts to exquisite music, and music in turn gives way to breathtaking design until a "silent" word becomes the only adequate name for God. This is the sense of Beauty I would like to describe .....

***************************


So, after a good look back through the year and Style.com, I have decided on my favourite outfits of the 2010. All of the outfits are from events, award shows etc and for me to like an outfit - I have to like it all! The clothes themselves, the shoes, hair, make-up.. it all adds up. I narrowed them all down to this list, quite a random bunch of celebrities but I think they have all nailed it with their ensembles! Clearly I have a thing for floor-length, glamourous gowns...
Christina Hendricks wearing Christian Siriano
 Lady Gaga wearing Armani Privé
Vera Farmiga wearing J.Mendel
 Olivia Wilde wearing Marchesa
 Diane Kruger wearing Jason Wu
 Gwen Stefani wearing Ann Demeulemeester
 Jennifer Nettles wearing Victoria Beckham
Blake Lively wearing Elie Saab 
 Nicole Richie wearing Marc Jacobs
 Kelly Osbourne wearing Tony Ward
 Kristen Stewart wearing Monique Lhuillier
 Drew Barrymore wearing Armani Privé
 Rose Byrne wearing Gucci
 Anna Kendrick wearing Elie Saab
Helen Mirren wearing Armani Privé 
 Leighton Meester wearing Bottega Veneta
 Melissa George wearing J.Mendel
 Jessica Alba wearing Sophie Theallet for Gap
 Tonne Goodman wearing Michael Kors

Iowa big win last night



Tonight we have three games...let's make some money

ECU vs Maryland - Gotta take Maryland here, ECU lost it's last two games to Rice and Southern Methodist. Not good.

Maryland 38 ECU 28

Baylor vs Illinois - Taking Baylor here, why...Robert Griffin III

Baylor 32 Illinois 27

Oklahoma State vs Arizona - Two solid teams here and this should be the game of the night. Both teams throw A LOT...but Zona does not have JUSTIN BLACKMON

OK State 41 Arizona 33


2 years ago

Forgot to pick some of the games but we are 5-3...SWAG


Michael Moore talks about each group and why they are significant at the link below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/last-minute-gifts-to-six_b_799350.html

Follow the links below this to find out more about each organization or to donate.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/#

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/858/1/

http://wikileaks.ch/support.html

https://thewaterproject.org/donate.asp

http://blog.park51.org/donate/

http://www.democracynow.org/

Please notice dear follower; that I have never asked for donations for myself through my blog. I have been doing it for a year and a half now and heavens know how bad my financial situation is. But when I see a good cause, a just or fair reason to offer a helping hand; I try to promote it the best way I can…So please, take the time and visit these sites and if you are so inclined and not so terribly injured by the Teahdist-Republicans that you can afford to spare a few dollars, please donate to those above. If it gives you any consolation, this blogger, albeit on a limited income of Social Security donated a miniscule amount. I do thank you in advance.

SOURCE: http://kylerklnh.blogspot.com/2010/12/six-groups-in-need-of-help-this-season.html


 

FREE HOT BODYPAINTING | HOT GIRL GALERRY