fame versus celebrity

husband said something last night which I found rather wise. We were talking about fame and celebrity.

He said about people you've never met, and I'm paraphrasing, "If you know someone's name but not their face, or their face but not their name, then they're famous. When you know someone's face and their name, then they're a celebrity."

Most politicians would meet this test. They're famous because you either know their face or have heard their name, but you can't connect the two. When you can, they're celebrities, and there are few of those in the political world.

The same for people in the arts or sports. You've seen their face, or the name rings a bell, but only when you can put the two together, then they're celebrities. Sports and the arts have more celebrities than politics, not surprising.

Of course, people can become famous without any talent and then, later, celebrities with no talent. Plenty of so-called reality TV "stars" are celebrities.

Compare this with radio or the print media. You may listen to someone on the radio for years, or read them regularly in print, but you would not be able to pick them out of a crowd.

Ergo, they're famous, but not celebrities.

When I lived in New York and Los Angeles, I got to know some famous people, either by dancing at clubs or through friends of friends. It was amusing being around them sometimes, because if they had a famous name but an anonymous face, they were ordinary Joes and Janes.

Alternatively, particularly with actors, people would always say things like "aren't you that guy who was on that show with the alien puppet?" But no one ever knew their name.

I wouldn't mind being famous. But I'd never want to be a celebrity.

he loves kim

This dude gets special bonus points for his really, really bad tattoo (enlargement). To begin, the art is amateurish with awkward proportions, and it's badly inked on as well.

It's also in very bad taste. There's nothing wrong with nudes, but a lady shooting beavers on your arm out in public is pretty tacky.

You have to wonder what Kim thinks of this. You also have to wonder what Vera thinks, the one to whom he professes his love on his neck.

This looks like it was taken at Wal-Mart. Why am I not surprised?

stone age man versus modern man

My husband is a big fan of Bernard Cornwell's historical novels. I had not read him before, so I tried one of his books a few months ago and just finished a second one recently.

They're both very readable and engaging, so I can see why the husband like them. They're "boy books" with lots of blood and guts and adventure, but I think a woman would enjoy them, as I did, if you like historical fiction.

Both were set in ninth century Britain, where the natives were trying and usually failing to fend off hoards of Viking invaders. Cornwell doesn't spare any details about the Vikings' cruel and often savage behavior.

The invaders brutally killed men in battle, enslaved the survivors, raped their women, and carted off any and all valuables as well as ordinary household objects before burning everything to the ground. As a result, the natives were often brutal when fighting off and retaliating against the invaders.

From what I've read, Cornwell's portrait of ninth century life is quite accurate. It very definitely was not an easy time to live, but at least the Brits were trying to be somewhat more civilized.

Nevertheless, if you have any ancestors from anywhere in Britain, Ireland, or Northern Europe, probably some of your genes originated from Vikings who invaded your forefathers' settlements and raped your many time great grandmothers.

I was struck by a thought after finishing the second book -- so much of our history in the last millennia or so has involved more civilized folk fighting off often more brutal invaders. Examples that come to mind beside the Vikings would be the fifth century Huns all the way through the Nazis to modern terrorists like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Lawlessness has been fighting lawfulness more locally too, with civilized people constantly being targeted by and battling criminal elements, whether it be some kind of mob or gang. This essentially means modern man has repeatedly fought off stone age man, with the latter having little to no regard for basic human rights let alone someone else's life.

Will humanity ever overcome its stone age genetics and tendencies? Hopefully so and the Vikings provide proof of that -- their descendants a thousand years later are today's largely pacifistic Scandinavians.

An interesting coda about history versus Hollywood: the image below is from the popular TV series The Vikings, but the real Vikings would never have fought barechested like this. At a minimum, they would have some kind of rough leather coats and the more seasoned warriors would have had chainmail, too.

moose on the loose

This moose was filmed trotting like a racehorse down a highway in Sweden. I don't speak word of Swedish, but given the driver's reaction, this must not be terribly common there.

Before I saw this, I had thought moose were New World animals, but I thought wrong. The European subspecies have smaller, thinner antlers as compared to their North American relations.

My Australian husband has never seen one in the wild, but I did once. When I was about seven or eight, I was staying with my grandparents for the summer and they took me for a week-long trip to Maine.

On a stop at Acadia National Park, we hiked a park trail through the woods. We came around a bend and discovered a huge bull moose standing only about a dozen yards away, chowing down on some plants.

We were protected by closely growing trees, so he ignored us but definitely knew we were there. We watched him about a half hour while he ate before he wandered off.

I remember almost nothing else about that trip, but I do remember Mister Moose vividly and everything about that lovely meadow where we saw him.

bigots and free speech

The French ultra-nationalist Marie Le Pen will soon face trial in France for making anti-Islamic comments. She has been charged with "incitement to discrimination over people's religious beliefs."

If convicted, she faces up to a year in jail and a €45,000 fine.

It's important to note that she's not being charged with inciting anyone to violence. This all stems from her snide nationalist comments.

This, of course, could not happen in the United States. Such a charge would be a patent violation of the First Amendment and quickly dismissed by a court.

With stories like this, I'm proud we Americans have the First Amendment. Yes, a lot of people say repugnant things that are considered constitutionally protected speech, but that's better than censorship.

As long as they're not inciting people to violence, speech must be free. The Westboro Baptist Church people are loathsome, but they're entitled to express their opinion, no matter how offensive.

Because otherwise where do you draw the line? Politicians should never decide what we can and cannot say.

Censorship often increases a fringe idea's attractiveness, but when it's allowed public exposure, ridicule and dissent will weaken it. So instead of stamping something out with a prosecution like this, you can actually make an idea appeal to more people.

train girl movie

The film adaption of the bestselling thriller novel The Girl on the Train is speeding forward, with stars attaching as well as a director and writer. I wrote about the book, which I very much enjoyed, here on my blog in March.

I said back then that I wasn't encouraged by the idea of a film version. The changing points of view are what makes the novel really suspenseful, and I don't know if that approach can be successfully duplicated on screen.

Emily Blunt has been cast as the lead. I think she's an excellent actress and hopefully she won't be glamorized for the movie, because the central character in the novel is really falling to pieces, both physically and emotionally. She's a drunk who's gone to seed and is rapidly gaining weight, not exactly something a movie studio would like.

Chris Evans is cast as her ex-husband, a critical character in the book. To play the character well, an actor will really need to go dark at times, and I don't know if he can pull that off. Edward Norton, in my opinion, would have been a much better choice.

Tate Taylor is directing, and I wasn't pleased to hear that. While his films have looked good, I think his style is rather on the nose and heavy-handed. Whenever he can, he goes for the obvious and easy sentiments.

I will definitely see the movie when it comes out. I'm already thinking it will not be a successful adaptation, but I'm also hoping I'll be proven wrong.

man buns

I've seen several articles recently on a currently popular male hairstyle called a man bun -- the hair is drawn up into a little knot like your grandmother or maiden great aunts wore.

Very few men can pull off this hairstyle successfully IMHO. On many, I'm afraid, their hair looks too girlie done up in a bun.

When I was about six, which would make my older brother about eighteen at the time, he used to let me comb and brush his thick, luxuriant hair that went beyond his shoulders. Sometimes after I was done, I'd arrange his hair in various girlie hairstyles, like two side ponytails, braida, or sometimes what is now called a man bun.

He was a good sport about the whole thing and would just leave his hair with the ridiculous hairstyle for the rest of the day, even if some of his friends came over. He was always -- and still is -- very kind and supportive.

If I see a man with a man bun these days, it makes me wonder if his little sister fixed his hair. That's how it often looks, particularly when the bun is small and the man is somewhat androgynous.

When I took dance and ballet classes, all the women with longish hair would do it up in a knot or bun. This kept it from flying all over the place.

So if a man wants to put his hair in a bun while he's working with tools or on his car, then that makes perfect sense. But as a fashion statement, on most men it looks like he's trying to copy Audrey Hepburn or Pebbles Flintstone.

In my opinion, the first one here cannot pull off this look. The second one can, even though it's a more womanly hairstyle.

cosmo TV series in the works

The American TV network NBC is now developing a new drama series based on Cosmopolitan magazine. Details are still sketchy, but the show will apparently be about fictional Cosmo editors' lives and loves.

My first thought on hearing this was that the show will be permanently handicapped because it's on American broadcast TV. If it was on cable or a service like Netflix, then it might work, but network censors will keep it very tame.

For comparison, imagine Orange Is the New Black as a network show. It wouldn't work, because all the edgy stuff would be cut out, leaving a pale shadow of the original.

Cosmo the cable or Netflix show could do a really sharp R-rated episode about an editor dating a reprehensible man who happens to be a master at cunnilingus. That couldn't happen on a network show, or it would be so couched and shielded in innuendo and gigglespeak that it would probably end up as confusingly dull.

Sexual titillation might sell well on network TV as a brief gag or aside but not as a frank discussion lasting through an hour-long drama. I can't see a network program with a subplot about queefing or love gravy.

NBC has a habit of killing off its new shows quickly. If the Cosmo show manages to clear the pilot hurdles and land a series commitment, I would not be surprised it it suffers an early death like so much of the recent Peacock fare.

trump is an eighth grade girl

The Daily Beast ran a provocative piece a few days ago with the title "Bullying Experts: Trump Is an Eighth-Grade Girl." That was followed by what I believe is called a deck: "Don’t let the comb-over fool you. Donald Trump’s rhetorical style is straight out of middle school."

After reading the article's laundry list of playground taunts that Trump has hurled at other candidates, once again I'm left wondering if he is deliberately acting like a jackass and isn't really serious about running for President. He's like an insult comic with a pretend campaign that too many people believe is real.

If he were elected President, God forbid, I seriously wonder if he'd bring the US close to or actually into war with some of his antics. If he speaks about his campaign opponents that way, how would he comment about an important foreign leader at a delicate moment in international relations?

Someone like Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin might take something he said at face value and start a chain reaction that wasn't easily stopped. Allies would be outraged and world financial markets would panic.

I think Trump's ad hominem insults about Carly Fiorina's face are one of the true low points in his bad behavior during his so-called campaign. Perhaps she's not supermodel material, but Trump himself is butt ugly -- he looks like a toad with a toupée.

And while we're on the subject of Trump, I recently read a very interesting and detailed article in The New Yorker which really explains who is drawn to support his campaign and why. What amazed me most about this piece was this: no matter how blithely superficial and fraudulent the Donald is as he brazenly spins half-truth upon lie upon exaggeration, his supporters nonetheless call him honest and truthful, utterly blind to his blatant mendacity and craven nepotism.

If P.T. Barnum joined up with Andy Warhol in a laboratory to create a monster, it would look and act just like Donald Trump.

yes, I am pregnant again

Several readers have written emails recently, all with a variation of "you haven't mentioned trying to get pregnant recently, so does that mean you're pregnant?"

Yes, silence sometimes says more than any words can. Child number two is due in March 2016, right around my husband's birthday.

This pregnancy so far seems like an exact rerun of my first one. Morning sickness showed up right on schedule at about the same time as before and during the same hours of the day. All other symptoms are the same.

I will say this time around is a lot less stressful than before. The first time was such a mystery and anxiety producing.

But this time, I know I'll barf every day but also am confident when it will stop. I know I'll have to pee once an hour so I plan that in my scheduling.

As a result, I'm sleeping a lot better this time around. Last time I terrified myself with all the possible worst-case scenarios, but this time I haven't even really thought of that.

We haven't yet said anything to our son and decided to wait until about Christmas. That way, if all does not go well, we won't confuse him about why a baby brother or sister never arrived as promised.

Whenever I am out with him and see a baby, however, we always stop to look and admire. I say something like "having a new baby in the house must be so much fun" and the like.

He's such a peaceable child and accepts almost everything, so I'd be surprised if he became jealous with a new sibling. He's not a clingy kid nor is he indulged, so I don't foresee any major behavior issues.

an enigma

If you have been wondering, the answer is yes.

the house hippo

This is a very cute commercial that apparently ran in Canada about fifteen years ago. I wonder how many small children ended up thinking hippos in the home were real because they were too young to understand what the message was here?

Our 34-month-old son pretty much believes anything he sees in a picture or on TV. So if I showed him this, he'd want a house hippo, too. We have a picture book with lots of animal photos, and he mistakenly says "pig" sometimes when I show him the hippo.

This concept in the commercial could be turned into a cute film for kids: zoo animals escape and somehow are shrunk to the size of mice, a la Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. One or two or three of them are captured by some children who then hide the critters in their home without their parents' knowledge, a la E.T.

Quick, somebody get Steven Spielberg on the phone.

internment camp chic

Looking at the photo below (enlargement), do you think these people are:

(a) Internment camp inmates lined up for roll call or

(b) Models wearing a much talked about collection at New York Fashion Week.

If you guessed (a) you guessed wrong. These are models wearing the new Yeezy collection from Kanye West, who fancies himself a designer.

The show was the hottest ticket at Fashion Week, partly because it was filled with fake celebrities like Kim Kardashian, who is married to West, and her extended family of talent-impaired camera moths.

The show was pretty seriously trashed by much of the fashion press. One headline read "The Emperor's New Clothes."

If you stole clothes out a Goodwill drop box, you couldn't look any worse than these models.

school freakout

I've been reading about the American teenager in Texas at the center of controversy because he brought a homemade electronic clock to school. He has a Muslim name, some teachers went into a bomb panic, police rushed to the scene, and the kid was taken away in handcuffs for questioning.

I don't want to comment so much on that incident itself. What surprised me is that the school rather quickly suspended him for a "bomb hoax" when it was pretty clear there were no hoax.

This is not the first time I've read in the press about American school kids facing hasty suspension for what really is administrative or faculty error. I have the sense that suspensions are handed out rather generously to a lot of kids these days for what they wear, what they say, minor pranks, and the like.

If I had finished high school, I would have graduated in 2003. I last attended school, however, in 2001, so that's almost fifteen years ago. Times have apparently changed.

Because I was ultimately expelled from three schools -- twice for excessive truancy and once for sex on school property during school hours -- I am somewhat familiar with school discipline issues. In the three school systems I attended, students were only suspended for really serious shit. I don't remember any kids were suspended in elementary or middle school.

Most transgressions were disciplined with detention or, for more serious incidents, double detentions. These could be stacked up, so certain incidents resulted in penalties like detention every day after school for a week or the maximum, which was double detention every day in a week.

An offensive shirt was handled by sending the kid to the office where he or she was given a sweatshirt to wear. Mouthing off, in-school cutting, and minor pranks resulted in detentions of varying severity.

I think if I was in an American school today, I would be stacking up a lot of suspensions for the things I did, which were remedied with detention "back in my day." I was repeatedly sentenced to detention hall, but that never really bothered me because I just read a book.

I hated school. But I think if I was in high school today, I would hate it even more.

As a parent of a child who will attend school in three years, I need to retool my thinking about school. School good; misbehavior bad; you must always go to class and do your homework.

In other words, don't do anything Mum did.

zombie weddings

At the risk of sounding like a crabby poo-face, I don't like theme weddings. I actually don't much like weddings for that matter, but theme events are at the bottom of the heap IMHO.

If a couple wants to spend $100K on their wedding, or have a waterskiing wedding, or whatever, then they have the freedom and right to do so. Just don't ask me to get too excited about it.

My husband and I have been invited to a theme wedding in November. The invitation (which is not the one reproduced below) has a Fifties/Greaseish/West Side Story-type theme. Men are encouraged to wear retro shirts and women to wear Fifties dresses to the ceremony and reception.

This is one of those wedding we really must attend, for complicated reasons, so I'm already rolling my eyes. The husband is not excited either. It also means an overnight trip, so we won't be able to put in an hour-long appearance at the reception and then leave with a "sorry, another commitment" excuse.

I suspect the reason why I'm not really big on weddings is that I've known people to make such a fuss about them, and then a few years later, they end up divorced. About five years ago, my husband and I attended the most lavish and expensive wedding I'd ever seen. That couple is now divorced.

In contrast, those I've known who had very modest weddings are still happily married. Yes, I know this is not a scientific survey, but personal opinions are based on personal experience, not reams of scientific data.

I'm glad James and I had a no-budget, no-frills wedding. The marriage is what is important to me, not the ceremony.

As for the zombie wedding invitation below, I'm just glad I wasn't invited to that. The invite is something I dug up on the Internet.

the leadership spill

Here in Australia, the government had a "leadership spill" yesterday. (No, that doesn't mean the prime minister fell down the steps.)

Like many western countries, the Aussies have a parliamentary system. Voters elect members of parliament, and those members in turn select their leadership, including the prime minister, aka the head of government.

Yesterday, the majority party held a sudden vote and dumped the sitting prime minister -- the leadership spill. However, that party will continue as the majority in Australian government until the next election, which might be a regularly scheduled general or a "snap election," meaning unscheduled, sudden, and soon.

When I read about all the gridlock back in Washington, sometimes I wonder if the United States would be better off changing to a parliamentary government. That way, one party would be in power until replaced by voters, and the constant struggle between the left and right would be largely abated between elections.

Right now, for all intents and purposes, the American government is almost permanently gridlocked because both parties are engaged in endless campaigning, 365 days of the year. As soon as one election is over, both parties close ranks and spend a considerable amount of time and effort fighting the other party, all with an eye on the next election.

In a parliamentary government, the minority party can make noise and obstruct certain actions, but they mostly have to sit things out until the next general election, much like in the United Kingdom and other countries with parliaments. In the meantime, the government actually governs and doesn't engage in an endless round of "gotcha" games to dominate the national dialog, as is seen in the U.S.

While a parliamentary system might cure some of the gridlock in Washington, I have to recognize that it would be close to impossible for that change to happen anytime in the near future. That requires a significant constitutional amendment, which would be very unlikely to happen any time soon.

a grim but hearty recommendation

Last night, my husband and I finished watching the first season of The Mill, a British television series set in Northern England in the 1830s. I don't know if the show is available yet in the US.

I've seen many period movies and television shows, and I think this was perhaps one the most realistic dramas, albeit starkly so, of anything I've seen. Most of the characters are indentured child servants at an orphans and foundlings workhouse within a Cheshire mill where they are virtual slaves.

To say the program is grim is an understatement. It would make Charles Dickens shudder. The children work fourteen-hour days, six days a week. They are up before the sun and roughly chased off to work, where they will toil until after the sun has gone down.

The life they live is harsh. For breakfast, they're given a literal handful of gruel which they must eat out of their fist as they're running to the mill. Some of the girls are repeatedly raped by an overseer, and one is made pregnant by the mill owner's son. As well, the dangers of being maimed by the machinery and then put out of the workhouse are vividly revealed.

Just when you think life couldn't be more bleak, we see another workhouse that's much worse, where more than a thousand of children live (and many die) in a virtual dungeon.

The program has an authentically bleak look to it. The streets are mired in muck, everyone is half filthy all the time, and many of the children look sickly and with open sores.

The Mill was based on true stories found within the 20,000-document archive of the actual 19th century mill where the series was filmed. Interestingly, that mill was owned by the same family which helped start The Guardian, a well known British newspaper.

All in all, it's an excellent series. If you don't mind fare that's grim but realistic, and ultimately uplifting, you'll not want to miss The Mill. It is the real "reality TV."

why did you cheat on me?

The video below has landed ten million hits since it went live last week. They are a real former couple, not actors. It's at once fascinating and painful to watch. (There's also a second part.)

I've never understood the thinking that you're not cheating unless you have intercourse. Sorry, I think a blowjob qualifies as cheating.

I'm also amazed how, two years after they broke up, neither really seems to have moved on emotionally, particularly her. Two years is an awfully long time to still be carrying around baggage from a former relationship. Set it free.

seven year blog anniversary

I started this blog seven years ago today. An entry has appeared every day since then, which adds up to more than 2,500 posts.

The fact that I've kept at it this long still amazes me. Sometimes the entries are long because I'm thinking out loud and want to get something off my chest. Sometimes they're brief and frivolous because that's the mood I was in when I wrote them.

I know I've annoyed people on occasion, and I don't intend to do that. I just say what's on my mind, like I would with a diary.

I plan to keep going. Why stop now? I look back through past entries from time to time, and I find this much easier to read than a diary because of the blog format.

So where will it end? I have no idea. Hopefully Blogger will keep on going, because if I have to move this to another platform, or they shut it down, I will not be a happy puppy.

On to year eight!

end of an era

Today is the last day I will be in my twenties. Until recently, the fact I would turn thirty tomorrow was freaking me out somewhat, but now I've made my peace with it.

I have come a long, long way, both physically and emotionally, since the day I turned twenty. A whole third of my life has passed, and I'm much happier now than I was ten years ago.

At twenty, I had no real idea of where I was going in life nor what I'd end up doing. I knew I wanted to continue modeling, but even then, I probably knew that would never be a full-time career.

I had an idea I'd like to be an actress and took some acting classes. I think I was good, but so were countless tens of thousands of women my age who were trying to break into acting.

I saw in a hunger in a few of them I didn't see in myself, so I knew I couldn't make acting a career. But it was fun while I was taking the classes, and I met some interesting people.

Having a husband and son gives me a sense of direction now. I'm not sure what I'll be doing or even where we'll be living in 2025 when I turn forty, but I do know I'll still be a wife and a mom, both roles that are very important to me.

Emotionally I feel stronger than ten years ago, but physically I don't feel any different. I think I'm in as good of shape now as I was in 2005.

So age is just a number, and I will only be one day older tomorrow, not one year or one decade older. Years and decades are simply highway markers along the road of life, and my odometer is turning over tomorrow in a random event.

I came across a George Burns quote the other day that spoke to me at this time in my life. He said "you can't help getting older, but you don't have to get old." Thanks for that, George.

mind your betters

I've read a lot of British novels and have seen a good bit of British TV, so I've encountered this expression in a variety of forms: "mind your betters." It originally meant that one should obey and submit to someone of a higher social class.

As an American, I've always thought this a particularly offensive concept. We Americans are taught that all of us are equal, and that while someone might have more money and an important job, no one is anyone's better.

Essentially, we are a meritocracy without aristocracy. Yes, the daughter of a Harvard graduate has a better chance of attending Harvard then a dockworker's son, but both have a chance. Anyone can become a success in any field with determination and perseverance.

I was thinking about this phrase because I just happened on it again in a book I'm reading now. And then came the coverage about how, as of yesterday, Elizabeth is the longest reigning monarch in British history.

She is queen simply because her father was king, her grandfather was king before him, and on and on and on. She is queen in a society that once firmly adhered to the idea of minding one's betters and bows to someone simply because of her genealogy.

For the most part, the United Kingdom is a democracy. But it still has a taint of aristocracy and monarchy. Sooner or later, as time passes, I think all monarchies need to evaporate, because without them, the "mind your betters" mindset will always linger to a certain degree.

I can't say honestly I think differently about this differently because I am married to an anti-royalist, given I was already on the same page before I met my husband. But I think about it more now because I live in a country within the so-called Commonwealth Realm, where ol' Bess is officially called "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."

I say keep the Queen as regent until she shuffles off her mortal coil, but then end the whole monarchy and aristocracy at that point. Fold all the royal assets into the British government, sell off some of them, keep the historical bits and relics, and move forward, finally arriving in the 21st century.

a sweaty, big-gutted man

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp have received lots of media attention recently here due to their ongoing war with Australia's Agriculture Minister.

The couple brought their two small dogs into Australia on a private jet earlier this year. They have been accused of circumventing Australia's strict pet importation laws by not putting them into quarantine after their arrival.

Many people, including my husband, his family, and me, believe that the Aussie pet importation restrictions are ridiculous and outdated. Right now, if you bring in a dog that's been fully vaccinated and certified by a vet, it must still be quarantined for thirty days upon arrival here. (The thirty days will change to ten under a new law not yet in force.)

Even though there are absolutely zero recorded cases of a dog testing positive for rabies after being vaccinated, Australia still insists they all must be quarantined. The United Kingdom has a similarly absurd law, as do some other countries.

There are, of course, moronic exceptions to this stupid law. If you bring a dog from New Zealand, no quarantine is required. Apparently they only have the harmless form of rabies over there.

Because Heard did not declare the dogs on a custom form, she has been charged with "producing a false document." And given she is the dogs' legal owner, not Depp, and was the one who carried them out of the plane, she alone faces charges for "illegally importing prohibited animals."

Barnaby Joyce, the Agriculture Minister, originally threatened to seize and euthanize the dogs if they didn't leave the country within fifty hours. They were promptly put on a plane and sent back to the United States.

To me, that shows Joyce all but admits these particular laws are pointless. If the dogs were such a public menace, why not force them to be removed immediately from the country? They'll somehow become dangerous only after fifty hours are up?

Depp got off a zinger against Joyce in the media during a press conference at the Venice Film Festival a few days ago when he referred to him as a "sweaty, big-gutted man from Australia." By and large, the Australian public and press seem to have sided with Depp and against Joyce.

Several Australian tabloids, as can be expected, ran cover stories with particularly unflattering photos of Joyce (not difficult to find) under screaming headlines like "Sweaty, Big-Gutted Outrage" and the like.

IMHO, pet quarantine laws in the 21st century are asinine. As long as the animals are properly vaccinated with full documentation, that is enough -- they don't need to be sent to dog prison.

It's time to move past the 19th century hysteria about rabies.

the enigmatic assassin

I borrowed a DVD of The American from the library a few days ago, because neither my husband nor I had ever seen it. The film, starring George Clooney, came out five years ago.

Both of us were really impressed with the movie, particularly Clooney's acting. I think it's the best thing I've ever seen him do.

The American received mixed reviews and did so-so business at the box office back in 2010, so it never garnered too much attention in the year it was released. I think some of the indifferent response may stem from the fact that the film feels more like a throwback to previous decades and thus lacks the frenetic, action-heavy thrust seen in many current thrillers.

Although the production values are contemporary, the story almost seems like something from a 1970s movie, not one made in our current decade. Characters are morally ambiguous, at best, and the ending is not tied up in a neat bow.

Clooney plays a remorseless killer. There is no Hollywoodized attempt to paint him as warm and caring. He kills people without a second thought if they threaten him in any way. But he's not overtly evil. No sinister look or sneer or laugh.

Love becomes his greatest challenges, however. Once he falls in love, his carefully controlled world begins to spin off its axis.

At its core, the movie is a think piece. It's not mindless entertainment. I wish more movies were like The American, because the movie biz churns out far too much predictable fare these days.

a horrible way to die

Two of my sisters-in-law and I had a discussion recently about what we thought were the most horrible ways to die. We divided this into deaths from natural causes and horrible deaths caused by accident or homicide.

We restricted the parameters to ways that people living in the so-called first world could die in the twenty-first century. So that ruled out horrible things like being drawn and quartered or crucified, both viciously savage means of execution in previous eras.

I've always thought that the most horrible way to die from natural causes was stomach cancer. Of the people I've known who knew someone who succumbed to this type of cancer, I've heard some really awful horror stories I won't repeat here.

As for the most horrible way to die from accidental or intentional death, I think being burned alive would be the worst. I don't mean being caught in a burning building, because most people who die in such situations succumb to smoke inhalation or other respiratory issues.

Being burned alive just has to be a horrible way to go. It must be intensely painful. I seem to remember an article about that once, focusing on suicides by fire and what people feel in their last moments. People who set themselves on fire and then calmly wait until they die must have tremendous self-control.

My sisters-in-law and I often have these weird conversations, which drives my husband and his brothers bananas. They think it's genetic that all three of them were drawn to women like us with twisted brains.

I know what you want

Many men are embarrassed about getting hard in public. Equally, many women are turned off by the site of a man with an erection when kissing him or making out.

I was not one of those women when I was single. I loved seeing that I made a man stiffen. When I danced in a club, up on that stage, I often could see see if a man was hard.

Some men, of course, tried to hide their woodies. But crossed legs, napkins on laps, or carefully folded hands often do not disguise a little soldier ready to march.

If I was kissing a man and I saw he was getting hard, I almost always would give him a squeeze where it counts. That let him know, without having to tell him, that I wasn't just a tease. Yes, you will close this sale tonight, baby.

Not all men get hard before the big event. They can last through heavy kissing and getting undressed and going down on a lady, yet they're still as flaccid as uncooked liver. It takes a woman's hand or mouth to bring him to attention.

My husband is usually one of those. I don't know if it's a self-control thing or what. That's part of the reason I love giving him blowjobs because he starts out limp and ends up ready to party.

On occasion, however, he'll get hard as soon as we start kissing and making out. Those are usually the times when he's an animal, practically ripping off my clothes and tossing me on the bed. I guess that's the Neanderthal part of his brain taking over.

The picture below brought all this to mind. They haven't passed the kissing phase yet, but already he's boned up and ready for the campaign.

self-appointed martyrs

Like many people, I have been following media coverage about Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses, notwithstanding being ordered several times to do so by various courts, including the Supreme Court. On Thursday, she was found in contempt of court and now sits in jail.

Davis claims that issuing marriage licenses to gay couples would violate her religious beliefs, even though the US Supreme Court recently ruled that laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.

Some media outlets have revealed that Davis herself has been married four times and became pregnant by a man other than her husband while she was married. One wonders where her religious beliefs were during her three divorces and related infidelity.

I believe a person can repent and reform, and perhaps Davis did that by finding religion, presumably after her fourth wedding. But I also believe that past behavior means you must be very careful taking public stands on certain topics where you have a checkered history.

If a person is a reformed alcoholic, for instance, I don't believe that person has a right to condemn other people who drink. Defeating an alcoholism problem is admirable, but that doesn't give someone a free pass on the hypocrisy front when it comes to condemning other people who have drinking issues.

If Davis had only been married once and never stepped out on her husband, then she could take a moral stand about the so-called sanctity of marriage. But Davis's sordid marriage and infidelity history, even if she later found religion, disqualifies her from taking a moral stand about marriage.

At the heart of this, I suspect Davis is a narcissist, an attention whore feeding on the media coverage. Her history suggests her opinions about marriage are transient.

For this reason, I think the anti-gay marriage people are making a very big mistake by anointing Davis as their poster child for supposed religious persecution. Because many people will never see Davis for anything other than what she is: a hypocrite.

It's hard to feel sorry for someone so determined to play the role of self-appointed martyr.

sex on mars

NASA has begun a year-long experiment in a remote Hawaiian locale where six astronauts will live in total isolation in a space colony-like structure to simulate a mission to Mars.

They may only leave their faux Mars colony in a spacesuit and will have no direct human contact, other than themselves, for an entire year.

Three of the astronauts are women and three are men. When I read that, I thought, "oh, good, they're all couples so they won't be without some fun."

But then I learned at least two are married to people not on the mission. I couldn't find the relationship status for the other four.

This experiment is supposed to analyze the people closely to see how they handle the stress and loneliness of a long space mission. So it would seem to me the team would be much stronger and mentally healthier if they went into the faux colony with their real spouses and significant others.

So that would mean the real astronauts sent to Mars, when that day comes, should be couples. Because basic endurance would be so much nicer if you didn't have to live like a monk or nun.

Of course, romance could break out among the uncommitted astronauts. And nothing is stopping the married ones from stepping out on their spouses while on fake Mars.

None of the news stories I found said anything about whether sexual activity was prohibited during the experiment. I certainly hope not.

the dirty weekend

I have always liked the phrase dirty weekend because it's so tidily precise. Based on my experience, this usage seems more common in the UK and here in Australia than in the United States.

The expression seems to mean different things to different people. For some, a dirty weekend is an adulterous getaway for two.

Others see it the way I do, that a dirty weekend is simply time away from family and children and obligations for an established couple in an out-of-town hotel. The two participants are either married to each other or in an equivalent long-term relationship. No cheating is involved.

However you define the participants, I think most agree that a dirty weekend is all about sex. There is little to no time for sightseeing or recreational activities outside of a bed.

You might go out to dinner once or twice during your dirty weekend, but then it's back to your hotel room for more sex. Alternatively, you can just take a break from fucking to order room service, and then smirk and giggle when the waiter bringing your meal tries not to blush after he realizes you've been banging like bunnies for hours.

I love my son with all my heart, but I do agree that a little time away is best for everyone. IMHO, a dirty weekend is one of the best ways to clear your mind and take a break. My husband and I have a dirty weekend about every three months. That time away keeps me sane.

trump goes full moses

Every time Donald Trump says something so preposterous my jaw drop, I'm even more surprised that his supporters cheer and accept it as the gospel truth without question.

Take this past weekend. Speaking to a crowd of wildly cheering supporters about crime, Trump vowed to somehow magically make gangs disappear. "We're going to get rid of those gang members so fast your head will spin," he said with no further details on how that could be done. "One of the first things I'm going to do is get rid of those gang members."

Poof. Magic. They're gone. Turned into pumpkins.

I have this mental picture of Trump in a Moses get-up, a la Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments. He waves his mighty staff, the clouds thunder and flash with lightning, and the problem is solved in the blink of an eye.

Red Sea? Poof. Goodbye. Gangs? Poof. Goodbye. Your brain? Poof. Goodbye.

Gangs have been around since at least ancient Rome. Cicero's letters and speeches provide a great insight into urban gang warfare nearly two thousand years ago.

Countless politicians and rulers through the centuries have tried to end gangs. They have all failed because of gangs' decentralized structure. As soon as you smote one, another one or several will pop up in its place.

This is further proof of my theory about Trump: he opens his mouth and says the first thing that pops into his head, no matter how nonsensical, without really thinking. It's the worst form of campaigning, because he keeps doing this, with no specifics, and no one challenges him.

Wake up America. Stop listening to that fool. He's destroying what's left of your common sense.

the first hijacker

I recently read a book by Mike Dash, a Welsh author who specializes in obscure but interesting historical subjects. The work in question was Batavia's Graveyard, a true story about a huge seventeenth century shipwreck, mutiny, and horrific mass murder on a small, bleak island about fifty miles west of Australia.

Hunting around online for more information about other Dash books, I discovered he has a great blog where he writes about strange and unusual events in history that are not "big" enough to warrant an entire book. The site has scores of entries that are both detailed and captivating.

His entry about America's first hijacker in 1939, for instance, is grisly and fascinating. His most recent piece about seventeenth-century murderesses is another lurid and captivating tale.

Perhaps the nicest thing about the site is the fact a professional writer is giving his work away for free. I imagine he's put several books worth of material on the webpage, representing hundreds if not thousands of hours of research and writing. He could have published these as historical anthologies, but instead made the material available to the public for free.

If you're at all interested in history that's presented by a concise writer who can tell a gripping story, I recommend you check out the webpage.