July 24, 2004
This is it! I mean it!

This week has been about reshaping some of my spaces. My new furniture is to arrive today, and I also finally got my computer table and a couple of bookcases for my office. Right now it's still a mess but things are shaping up. I'm quite happy, but busy and a bit sore from the lifting and packing. I have at least another week of work before it's to my liking (and that's not counting any painting I may do, but that wouldn't be until the fall).

A few weeks ago I noticed that various people were posting photos of their blogging stations (computer desks). Knowing that this is the best mine will ever look, as it's only had three days to accumulate clutter, I thought now was a good time to join in.

My computer desk, from the side

Computer desk from side small.jpg

I took this next photo first, but for obvious reasons it wasn't the best for seeing the desk. However, it's great for seeing my flag - at least as well as I see it. This window faces the road, so everyone passing by sees my flag. If I didn't have such cheap ($10) roller shades, I'd probably be able to make the shade go up enough to see all of it myself.

My computer desk, with flag


computer desk with flag small.jpg

One of yesterday's projects was to partially cover that great white cement block wall in the office. I had the clever idea of hanging a quilt top I purchased off eBay a year or so ago, which I've not finished yet. I screwed cup hooks in the molding and hung curtain rings with clips on them. The quilt top wouldn't cooperate, and kept falling out of the first clips before I could get the last clips engaged. Finally I pinned safety pins along the top of the quilt top and hung the pins on the clips. Viola! A lovely folk-arty statement. The elliptical trainer is a kitschy piece of modern art for a counterpoint (okay, I bought it to use but haven't in a while. I'm going to the gym instead! Leave me alone!).

The House Quilt


Quilt on wall small.jpg

And finally, lest you think I've forgotten my true reason for being:

Haydon and Molly Katherine with Alice

Girls Aliceclose cropped and resized.jpg

Have a lovely weekend. I'm off to make chicken salad for the returning brother and family, and forge a path through the detritus for the furniture guys.

Posted by susanna at 12:09 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
Speaking of lawyers...

This is to anyone out there with experience in copyright law. Yes, I know I'm asking for professional information that normally I'd have to pay for. I'll barter with you - you can read my blog free in perpetuity. How's that?

The situation is this: I have another blog, which I'm trying to get fired up again, called The Crime Resource Room. One of the things I want to do there is summarize current criminal justice journal articles so that the average person can read and understand what the latest research in the field is, without having to wade through piles of statistics and jargon. My question for the lawyer is: Do I have to get the permission of the journals in question in order to do this? I'm not going to republish their abstracts, but rather read the article in question and write a one or two graph summary about it. I would of course give a full citation to the actual articles, the majority of which will not be online, and even those that are online are for the most part unlikely to be open access.

What say you? If you're really on top of it, I might be persuaded to part with homemade cookies as a further thank you.

Now, I have to go rescue my house. It is currently filled with smoke because I put a chicken in to bake at 500 degrees, just as the recipe said, then promptly forgot about it and went to blog. Thirty minutes later my house looked like a San Francisco dock in the pre-dawn hours of a muggy day. And my smoke alarm did not go off. This is something to think about.

Posted by susanna at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
And this is new because....?

Some lawyers are complaining because celebrities are getting the kid glove treatment by the courts. Here's how it's being played:

"The idea that you have justice and then you have celebrity justice is really offensive," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. "Does the public understand what preferential treatment these people are receiving from the system?"

What she wants you to believe is that celebrities getting preferential treatment is some big new development. How shocking! We must do something about it! Of course anyone who is marginally aware of the criminal justice system knows that your ability to play the system rises exponentially with the amount of money you have to spend on lawyers to obfuscate and tie up the system. That's not to say the lawyers so doing are working outside the law - they're generally not. But they're very very good at playing the game.

If anything, celebrities are as if not more likely to have troubles with the criminal justice system now than ever before. And the reason is partially because of the very thing that this is really about. The rest of the same woman's quote:

"If they decide celebrities are entitled to a different kind of justice," Dalglish said, "we have lost press oversight of the system. Without that, we will never know if the rich and famous are getting the same justice as the rest of us."

Emphasis mine. You see, the preferential treatment she's complaining about here is the secrecy with which many of the proceedings are done (or at least she's claiming things are done in secret). What she wants is more press access. But why the secrecy? Is it because the Big Celebs want every little detail to be private?

In Jackson's child molestation case in California, the judge has sealed almost all documents and has imposed a sweeping gag order. In the Bryant rape case in Colorado, a gag order also restricts comment by the two sides, and many hearings on the accuser's sex life are held in secret. In New York, Stewart's judge closed jury selection to the media and the public.

In all three cases, the judges cited fears of sensational publicity tainting the jury and interfering with a fair trial.

Emphasis mine. Are the judges acting unreasonably? Is there a likelihood that with the celebrity cases, there will be huge intrusive get-every-word-out-to-the-public-before-the-jury-is-selected press coverage? I only have one response to that:

O.J. Simpson.

Maybe sometimes it's a bad thing that, as Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson said in the article, " 'the actions taken in high-visibility cases end up defining the law' for everybody else". Maybe sometimes things that need to get out to the public don't (and the article cites as an example the case of jury selection in Martha Stewart's trial, which was closed). But what Ms. Reporter isn't acknowledging is that all the information will come out in trial, that everything that should legally be known will be presented to the jury in open court. And the attorneys on both sides will be vociferous and ferocious in their advocacy of their side, all the more because it's a celebrity. Every defense attorney wants to be Johnny Cochran. No prosecutor wants to be Marsha Clark.

What Ms. Reporter also doesn't acknowledge is the reason why the judges feel compelled to grant such secrecy, to impose gag orders. It's because it's been proven repeatedly that it's absolutely necessary. The rulings are not to prevent responsible press coverage. They're to prevent the 24/7 scrambling for new information by hundreds of reporters hungry for notoriety and ratings.

Yet again the press is not willing to accept that any limits on former press freedoms are not a result of the stifling of their First Amendment rights, but a direct consequence of their consistent and irresponsible trampling of every single right of the average person that stands in their way. I'm not saying that sometimes the courts go too far; I'm sure they do. But the press is a direct cause of that overreaction in far too many instances.

Posted by susanna at 11:14 AM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
Computer update

My desktop works! After everyone agreed I needed an adapter for the mouse, or I needed a new one, I thought, this is the mouse I used in NJ! I must have an adapter somewhere already... After digging around, I found it, plugged everything in properly, booted the computer, and it worked! So now I'm a two-computer woman.

Is there better in life than this?

Posted by susanna at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
Armed Forces Tribute

This is a very moving combination of a Ricky Skaggs song and a slide show of soldiers in Iraq, with a voice-over by a little girl. Meant to be a tear-jerker, and it works in a good way. It's making its way around right now via email.

Posted by susanna at 08:57 AM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
July 23, 2004
It's all about timing

Drudge is indicating that the Pentagon today released the records of President Bush's National Guard service that were earlier supposedly destroyed. Here's the quote from Drudge:

The Pentagon on Friday released payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, saying its earlier contention the records were destroyed was an 'inadvertent oversight.' The records cover July through September of 1972, when Bush was working as a campaign volunteer in Alabama...

Interesting. The search was going on now because of an Associated Press open records request. The article says the AP is "evaluating" the records now, which means they're reading them.

Now we sit back and wait for who will yell about the timing. If the reports show that Bush served as he was supposed to, the Dems will yell about timing. They'll say the Bushies knew all along they were there, and only hauled them out this close to the election to minimize focus on Kerry's military service vs Bush's. If the records show some discrepancies and some not-so-favorable information, look for the Republicans to yell foul about their being conveniently "found" so close to the Dem convention. They'll be looking for some cuckoo bird Dem operative as the culprit.

It is curious that they showed up now; the Pentagon is claiming that they weren't found earlier because the searchers were using the wrong index number. Deliberately? Or not? Sometimes there are coincidences. This could be one. And then again, it could be something else.

UPDATE: Told you so.

Posted by susanna at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | Trackback (0)
Document this

WaPo has an amazingly thoughtful and even piece about the liberal predominance in the making and release of documentary films. Naturally it keys off Moore's latest, but it doesn't stop there. It demonstrates how - and explains why - the liberals have a lock on the medium. However, it's not "pro" any one side, unless you consider it taking sides to include a good proportion of quotes from people concerned that the liberal lock on documentaries does a disservice to the voices of a lot of Americans.

My favorite quotes:

"The people who make documentaries very often come from the left," agreed LA Weekly critic Ella Taylor, "mostly because conservatives are not particularly socially conscious people looking to change the world."

I'd be really interested to have a count of how many genuinely conservative people she actually knows personally and considers friends. Clearly she's repeating some liberal meme here with no personal experience of the group she's labeling. And then there's this:

Not all filmmakers recognize a left-leaning tradition. "The vast majority of documentaries have no political leanings," said Barbara Kopple, the director best known for two Oscar-winning films, "Harlan County U.S.A." and "American Dream." "The ones that do are simply exploring social issues, and different types of storytelling emerge from different crises. So, no, most documentaries do not come from the left."

I would argue most do, even some seemingly innocuous ones. Last night while putting together a bookcase and working on a cross-stitch, I watched most of several documentaries on A&E; and PBS. One of those on A&E; was called, "Washington Wives", which you would assume would cut across the political spectrum. You would be wrong. It featured Teresa Heinz Kerry and Elizabeth Edwards, plus Howard Dean's national finance director, Stephanie Shriock, and more-socialite-than-journalist Sally Quinn. During the part I watched (only about 45 minutes of the 2 hours), the part featuring the wives was not highly ideological. However, Quinn came off as both smugly partisan and arrogant about her position in the Washington social whirl.

Another documentary was about the burning of Rome during Nero's time (it's part of a series called "Secrets of the Dead" that is quite fascinating). It looked at the destruction revealed through archaeological digs, and speculated about the fire's origin and purpose. The mainstream theory seemed to be that Nero wanted to rebuild the city to his preference, so when the powerful Senators bucked him and refused to give over their elaborate homes to him for demolition, he just had the whole place burnt down and started over. Interesting, albeit (as they noted) difficult to prove at this distance. Much was made of Nero's decision to blame the Christians for it, which resulted in horrific persecution of the faithful. Then, toward the end of the program, another historian introduced his theory: that, because of prophecies in Revelation, Christians did set the city on fire deliberately to destroy the city that Revelation calls "the whore of Babylon". In his scenario, Nero's persecution of the Christians was not a cover up, but rather the appropriate Roman response to arson. To those of you who don't follow - or don't care - about various historical theories associated with behavior of Christians in ancient times, they are often negative about the Christians, positing behavior that goes directly against Biblical edict (arson, leading to wide-spread killing, including of their own people, is not a Christian act). In this case, it was presented toward the end of the program, and then given credence by another historian who had gained the audience's trust by his prominence throughout the program. And there the documentary ended, with the radical new groundbreaking theory that Christians were arsonists and Nero just another emperor going about his legitimate business.

Do I generally object to the presentation of material this way? Of course. It's not particularly fair many times. But at the same time, it's not always so egregious as to make the documentary unbearable, and usually enough information is included that is either neutral or balanced. No one is going to agree with anyone else's interpretation of things all the time, and it's good to challenge your beliefs and received knowledge on a regular basis. Shocking as it may seem to some of you, I am not always correct. Recognizing that, I seek out new information and evaluate it based on what I know to be true or believe to be right. In other words, I'm adult enough and sentient enough to separate wheat and chaff.

But some people, I'm sorry to say, are not. I've taught college courses to freshmen and sophomores for five years, and the lack of critical thinking skills is horrible. And that's one of my main problems with documentataries like those described above. It's not that they exist, it's that they exist with the self-aggrandizing claim of truth that a lot of people viewing them either don't have the skills or the inclination to question. That's why I would like more documentaries - on the big AND small screens - that approach things from a conservative perspective. I don't want people to blindly follow conservative views any more than I want them to blindly follow liberal views. What I do want is for them to have something to weigh against the other. I want them to be forced into critical thinking.

And meanwhile, back at school, I want critical thinking required as a college class in the freshman year.

Posted by susanna at 12:42 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
July 21, 2004
Help!

I've successfully set up my new computer table and moved all my computer equipment over to it. That includes setting up my old desktop for the first time since mid-December of last year, when the movers took away my monitor.

Therein lies a problem.

I have keyboards and mouses (mice?) for each computer. The desktop has two USB ports as well as round plug-in places marked for keyboard and mouse. Both keyboard and mouse I have hooked up to it now are in the USBs. The mouse is the same one I used in NJ, the keyboard the one that came with my laptop (I'm using the natural keyboard from my desktop with the laptop now). The problem is, when I turn on the computer it says, "Windows did not detect a mouse attached to the computer. You can safety attach a serial mouse now. To attach a mouse to a PS/2 mouse port, you must first turn the computer off." This stops the start-up just before the desktop appears. Even "control-alt-delete" from the keyboard won't work, so I have to just turn off the computer.

Any suggestions? I'd rather not go buy another mouse with one of those little round plug-in things. I seem to remember having an adaptor maybe at one point? Who knows. It's been 8 months!!

Posted by susanna at 05:40 PM | Comments (5) | Trackback (0)
Ack!

I signed up with Blogads this morning, not that I'm expecting to be able to quit my (non-existent) day job as a result, but because I thought, hey, why not? Of course I can't figure out whether I've done it right. At the same time I thought I pasted my Sitemeter counter on my individual post archive so it would count hits to links to archives, but I don't see it either.

Sigh.

I haven't time for this.

My furniture comes on Saturday and my house looks like it's been ransacked. Not that that's unusual, mind you. Just that there's not room for new furniture in the living room right now, much less the back bedroom. So today will be about wrestling some semblance of order into the mess and also grading the exams my classes took yesterday.

I may post later. I may not. It depends on whether or not the police come to place me under involuntary commitment.

UPDATE: And just to show you how thoroughly odd I am, I spent about 20 minutes last night looking up my favorite shows online and constructing a date and time grid on Excel to show when they air during the week. It covers only prime time, and it's distressing (or maybe good) that it's less than half filled. But at least I won't miss any L&Os.;

Posted by susanna at 09:18 AM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)
July 19, 2004
This just nauseates me

And I'm sure you'll see why very quickly:

...in this year's election, there is a hidden high-tech twist. Rutkus and Harris are out to "map" the political demography of this neighborhood, trolling in the service of a quasi-science called "database targeting."

Houston's answers will bounce from Rutkus's clipboard to a computer in the state Democratic Party's offices here, and then 400 miles away to computers housed in the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington.

Like rivulets flowing to rivers and rivers to the sea, this information will join an enormous data torrent streaming toward Washington from all around the country. Houston's "profile" is just one of 166 million -- or one for every registered voter -- that the DNC is constantly updating in a huge digital cache known as DataMart. The Republican National Committee tends a similar information trove, dubbed Voter Vault...

"You could ask me about any city block in America, and I could tell you how many on that block are likely to be health care voters, or who's most concerned about education or job creation," said DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe. "And I could press a button and six seconds later you'd have a name, an address and a phone number for each of them. We can then begin a conversation with these people that is much more sophisticated and personal than we ever could before."

Those of you who've been with me a while probably remember this post on grocery savings cards, which led to a few additional comments from Glenn Reynolds. My point here is not about any terrorist use, but definitely about the fact that there's just too much information collection going on. It's nobody's business! You can talk to me all you want (Jim Bowen!) about how it's too complex a process to sort through all the information, but did you notice that the political databases are crunching data on 166 million people?

I don't want my grocery list matched to my credit card purchases matched with my credit record and bank statement and political affiliation and education and online commentary and and and! It's nobody's business!

I know I'm trying to whistle down the wind here. But the technology's likely to arrive sometime in the next century where all that information could be in one database that I could search from my handheld computer with wireless Internet connection. All that's already intact except maybe for the consolidated database and generalized access.

It's enough to make me live off the grid, make purchases using only cash, and refuse to give any information about me to anyone. Maybe even including my Mom.

(Just kidding, Mom!)

Posted by susanna at 10:24 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
Hassoun speaks

US Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun spoke to reporters today outside the Marine base at Quantico, stating that he did not desert and was held by anti-coalition forces for 19 days. The Marines are reportedly allowing him to decompress before interviewing him as part of the investigation into his whereabouts during his absence.

I'm still skeptical. But I promise to make a full apology to Hassoun (well, on my blog anyway) if he's exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Posted by susanna at 07:01 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
Confession time

I was sitting there watching MT-Blacklist delete a dental-insurance comment spam when I realized I had to confess to you all. Remember when I was moaning and groaning and whining almost daily about comment spam? How I fumed at having to delete every spam and rebuild every post? Remember how surprised some of you were that MT-Blacklist wasn't handling that?

Well. Confession time. I never de-spammed! That's correct. I would add the spam URL to the MT-Blacklist, and then would go back to my blog and delete it manually, wondering why MT-Blacklist was so great. Then one day I thought, hmmm... I wonder what happens when you hit de-spam? So I did, and the program sucked out dozens of nasty little hidden spam-critters. It was such a joy to click "delete"! And then MT-Blacklist rebuilt it all itself.

What a delight.

What a total dunce I am.

I need a large "L" tattooed on my forehead.

But don't try it. The closest I'll get is confessing to you. And yes, the next time you don't understand why something that supposed to work well won't work well for me, it is logical to assume user error.

Posted by susanna at 05:24 PM | Comments (1) | Trackback (0)
Counterpoint to a flaming liberal

I've been asked by the librarian at the school where I teach to write a political column from the right. She's starting a little library-newsletter and wants to include views from both sides, I assume as a regular feature. She kindly allowed me to read the column submitted by her liberal writer, which was a foaming indictment of Bush and why he should be considered a war criminal. It involved Guatanamo Bay and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, as well as pointing out what he obviously saw as the sheer lunacy of impeaching Clinton for a little sex on the side and not indicting Bush for "torturing brown skinned terror suspects". I won't reproduce it here, because it's not been published yet and I don't have his permission. When she prints it, I'll post it here.

I thought for a while about what to write, and decided not to directly respond to his column. For one thing, he won't have a chance to rebut me before publication, and it's just not fair to rip him up in a blindside. For another, I felt I could make the necessary point in the midst of a broader based column. (I'm also nearly forcibly restraining myself from ripping up his argumentation and lack of actual support for his assertations. I'm trying to be nice here. It hurts.)

Here is what I've written. The available space is small. The assumed audience is the faculty, staff and some students of a community college in rural Alabama, where the average person knows politics mostly from watching television. In other words, I'm not assuming many of them know who Joseph Wilson is. Any and all commentary is appreciated; I intend to submit this tomorrow.

Spiraling liberal hypocrisy

Here’s a great joke for you to share with former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson should you see him anytime soon:

Q: What did Saddam Hussein want for his birthday? A: Nigerian yellow cake.

“Nigerian yellow cake” refers to a form of refined uranium ore that can be used to make nuclear bombs. In early 2002, Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA – at the recommendation of his wife, a CIA employee – to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to procure yellow cake from Niger. Based on his and other reports, the intelligence community decided it was likely true, and that information formed part of the decision to go to war against Iraq last year.

During the State of the Union address in January of this year, President George Bush said the famous 16 words that caused a firestorm of protest from the left:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

When the statement came into dispute, it quickly became the centerpiece of the anti-war left’s efforts to convince Americans and the world that President Bush and his administration deliberately lied in an effort to support the war. Wilson himself stepped forward to deny that Iraq had sought Nigerian yellow cake, and thus became the darling of the movement, appearing on television, publishing a book with “truth” in the name, and becoming a martyr by claiming that his CIA-spy wife was maliciously “outed” by the administration. This summer, he signed on as a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry, and Kerry’s campaign is paying for a website where Wilson comes out supporting Kerry – a website called “RestoreHonesty.com”.

I’ll let William Safire, in a column in The New York Times on July 19, tell you the bad news about just how much honesty there is in Wilson and his claims:

Two exhaustive government reports came out last week showing that it is the president's lionized accuser, and not Mr. Bush, who has been having trouble with the truth.

The reports specifically state that not only did Wilson lie about the yellow cake after Bush’s speech – several reliable sources indicate that Saddam did try to get yellow cake from Niger – but he also lied about what he himself said in his report. He lied about his wife, saying she did not recommend him for the mission, when the Senate report includes information from a memo written by Wilson’s wife outlining why he would be a good candidate for it. And an article in the July 26th issue of the conservative political magazine The Weekly Standard includes this quote from the Senate report:

…when asked how [Wilson] "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."

The anti-war liberals and leftists are so intent on demonizing Bush and “his” war that they are willing to swallow any kind of evil to make it happen. Wilson is just one example. John Kerry says he will try to bring the French into the coalition to rebuild Iraq, but says nothing about the fact that one of the reasons the French tried to block the war was because their oil companies were making millions through an oil-for-food scam worked with Saddam. No Saddam, no millions. The liberals pant for the day when Iraq and Afghanistan are handed over to the U.N. to manage, conveniently ignoring that where the U.N. is in control now, millions of dollars are disappearing into U.N. officials’ private pockets (including that of Kofi Annan’s son), and refugees in Africa are routinely terrorized and sexually brutalized by U.N. “peacekeeping” forces. There’s even evidence that the U.N. is directly responsible for the continuing battles in Iraq that are killing Iraqis and Americans daily. This from the July 19th New York Post:

American officials believe that millions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the scandal-plagued U.N. oil-for-food program are now being used to help fund the bloody rebel campaign against U.S. forces and the new Iraqi government, The Post has learned.

Apparently it is “all about the ooooiiiillll” for some people, and they don’t really care about the “brown-skinned” humans who are in their way. But it’s not President Bush or the Republicans who want to give them control over millions more innocent lives.

Perhaps we should have a new bumper sticker for the John Kerry for President crowd to send to Niger, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bosnia, and any other country the liberals and the U.N. want to control:

“Let them eat yellow cake."

I did a search for the information on TotalElfFina, the French oil company, and didn't find it. Do any of you know a source that speaks of their efforts to block the war, and the ways they benefited while Saddam was in power? Also, any links to the U.N. "peacekeeping" force atrocities. I'll keep looking too.

I wish I could see the liberal columnist when he reads my column.

Heh.

Posted by susanna at 04:56 PM | Comments (6) | Trackback (0)
July 18, 2004
Life and pictures

Thanks to the generosity of my excellent parents, I recently ordered a new bed and dresser. I've wanted a sleigh bed for almost 20 years, literally; I nearly bought one at an antique store for $600 back in 1987, but it was a bit out of my budget. I'm glad I didn't, because I've moved all over the eastern US since then and it wouldn't have fared well. But I feel settled now, and I'm beyond delighted to get it. (If you're interested, this is it - the sleigh bed, dresser and mirror.)

The duplex I'm in has three bedrooms: One is my office, one is a guest room and one is my bedroom. Knowing I was getting the new bedroom suite, I put my old one in the room I chose for the guest room, and all the overflow boxes went into the bedroom I wanted for mine. I'm sure you see how this is shaping up. Yes, I now have to clean out the back bedroom in time for the furniture to arrive. When I ordered the furniture two weeks ago, they said, "Six weeks to get it in". I thought, great! I'll put in an hour or so a night and it'll be spiffy by mid-August. HA! I got a call from the saleslady on Friday, saying brightly, "It's in! When do you want us to bring it?"

I don't think she wanted to hear, "Mid August?"

So the last few days I've been diligently unpacking boxes, putting things away, and even packing up things to send to Goodwill. For a change of pace, I stopped for a while yesterday and installed a curtain rod in my kitchen. I just finished up that job this afternoon, installing the other two. The back bedroom continues to mock me, however, and I shall most likely need to hit it for a few more minutes after church.

Who knew I had so many old cassette tapes? Do I really want one of Kenny Rogers? And I have about 30 old record albums in a plastic bin, despite the fact that I haven't had a record player since mine was stolen in 1988, with Elton John's "Too Low for Zero" on it at the time. Maybe those should go to Goodwill too, although I don't know if I can part with my Donny Osmond albums. Old ones, mind you, before his voice changed. I also found that I have approximately 20 clear glass candle holders of various sizes, in addition to three dozen linkable white-ceramic tealight holders from IKEA. We won't discuss the three bags of 100 tealights each.

In the midst of digging out, I haven't a lot of time to write anything coherent for here. (No comments, Alan.) Therefore, I'm going to gift you with more images of my nieces, always worthy subjects for any and all attention.

First, here is one taken during a picnic at a local small park. It was a great sunny day, warm but not stifling. I thought it was a great photo.

UPDATE: The rest of this post was dropped into "MORE" to take the photos off the front page. That's because I put new ones up top!

MORE...
Posted by susanna at 03:19 PM | Comments (3) | Trackback (0)