Monday, April 30, 2007
A. I got sunburned—although not as badly as I really should have, what with the being outside with no sunblock for a couple hours. (Yes, Mom, I know. I'm sorry. I just forget if it's not the pool or a football game. We'll play our games at night, though.) I just got pinkness on the forearms and my face is fine because, proving that I am not a complete moron, I wore a hat! Maybe it’s because I’m farther from the Sun in Wisconsin?
B. I haven’t used a mitt since the year 2000. And I haven’t used a mitt on a regular basis since the year . . . let’s think about this . . . 1994? Holy cow. Yes, I apparently haven’t played organized softball since OJ Simpson tried to flee Los Angeles in a white Ford Bronco.
C. I am going to be SORE tomorrow. My right arm, right shoulder blade, and back aren’t happy about how hard they had to work to get the ball back to the pitcher when I was catching; my legs are annoyed about all the runnin’ around; and my left hip and knee are cheesed off about how I fling my right leg out behind me when I throw. (It’s pretty ridiculous, yet uncontrollable.)
I managed to get on base a couple times while we were scrimmaging and managed not to make a fool of myself for the few minutes I played meaningful field positions, so I was pretty pleased. Still, I’m glad my team is in the lowest, easiest, “run to your right side to get to first” league.
(I’m kidding. Everyone on my team knows which direction first base is, I swear.)
Saturday, April 28, 2007
In celebration of my having figured out how to put videos in my blog, I bring you one that I enjoy very, very much:
(In case anyone's wondering why there hasn't been a Ridiculous Boyfriend Spotlight on Acie Law IV--that's because it's not ridiculous. I mean, we went to college together. We did! Technically. And I, of course, have A Plan. But it's A Secret Plan, because I don't need any random internet hussies stealing it.)
Friday, April 27, 2007
Chanda and I went to the cheapo movie theater today to see Music and Lyrics, starring Hugh Grant! And Drew Barrymore.
It's a quintessential chick flick; I would have expected nothing less. As with your standard quintessential chick flick, there's not bunches to say beyond "It was cute!" Hugh Grant is a washed-up 80's pop star, Drew Barrymore is a kooky gal, they overcome some obstacles and then fall in love. It started out fairly slowly, but Hugh Grant, as always, was funny without even trying and, also as always, mysteriously sexy. (If you add up the individual physical features of Hugh Grant, it should not total an attractive man. And yet. Maybe it's the accent.) It picked up steam in the second half, though. The love story was not completely believable, but it was nice and happy.
The reason that none of this really matters is because the movie opened with this brilliantly cheesetastic music video, which was easily worth the $2.50 admission all by itself:
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
This is not simply because Dr. Chase is very, very pretty and has a delightful Australian accent. The actor who plays him is very good—he’s probably the second-best actor on the show, which is a very big compliment for somebody who’s on a show with Hugh Laurie.
Also (and this is a problem for all non-House characters on the show besides annoying Cameron), we know very little about Chase’s character. What we do know, however, speaks well to his qualification as a Ridiculous Boyfriend.
1. He’s a sweetie. Like when he decided that he wanted to have a real relationship with Cameron and then she shot him down? His sad face was so sad!
5. And pretty?
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
S a n j a y a !
I can't help it! I need to witness the phenomenon!
Monday, April 16, 2007
I mentioned in a recent post that if I married Prince William (fingers crossed!) and gave birth to a future heir to the throne, if said heir was a boy, I'd want to name him Henry. This attracted some comment--the name "John" was suggested as an alternative. Well, it can't be John. The only John there was--well, he was no good. Remember the Magna Carta? His nobles forced him to sign that because they were sick and tired of his nonsense. Remember Robin Hood? That weaselly, maneless lion? That's John. Similarly, Charles is ruled out (the current Prince Charles is going to go by George once he's king, so I hear) because of the ax-related unpleasantness ("The most interesting thing about King Charles I is that he was 5 foot 6 inches tall at the start of his reign, and only 4 foot 8 inches tall at the end of it"--Monty Python's "Oliver Cromwell"). Richard is also unworkable, what with Richard III having been pure eeeeeeeeevil. Oh, and Arthur would be great, but anytime you name an heir to the throne that, he dies an extremely untimely death.
The name Henry also got bagged on by this week's guest columnist, the incomparable Lesley Skousen. Lesley is my second-year mentor in the history department. We both study early modern England, although she's more of a Reformation scholar.
Ha, ha! I just totally pissed her off right there.
Seriously, though, Lesley knows her stuff about kings 'n' whatnot, although she's wrong about what the best name for my kingbaby would be, claiming that Edward is the best choice. In an effort to settle the me vs. Lesley, Henry vs. Edward debate, each of us have presented our argument and YOU, the readers, can decide.
No voting for John.
The Case for Edward
"Edward" is the best Kingbaby name. It is the most frequent and most ancient of English king names; with three famous Saxon kings that makes 11 Kings Edward of England total. Not only is it regal, but it comes with many fun nicknames - Ed, Ted, Ward, and Eddybaby (the Kingbaby), among others.
Edward has been the name of many a successful ruler, with brilliant qualities. Edwards I and III were exteremely strong kings that led England to social peace and proto-national security. Edward I built the Tower of London into what it is today. His son, Edward II, was a bit spoiled, and he sure loved him some Gaveston (his little "Ganymede"), but his weak reign had more to do with being spoiled and silly than with his regal name. When his wife conspired to kill him, and succeeded, Edward III did the appropriate thing and punished the traitors - but showed mercy towards his mother, granting her permenant banishment from court instead of the hangman's noose. See? Edward is powerful, but merciful and family-oriented.
Edward IV continued the Edward style of I & III. Despite the Wars of the Roses, he managed to rule in relative peace. What an achievement. However, he died (bravely and in style), leaving young Edward V in the hands of Richard (aka "Richie Rich" "Hunchback Rich" or "Dick") - a dispicable name. Edward V was murdered, but I bet he died a brave death, protecting his younger (and inferiorly-named) brother Richard.
Edward VI had 3 strong namesakes to live up to, and one namesake to avenge. He took this responsibility seriously, and implemented radical political, religious, and social change. He was prococious, daring, clever, and innovative. In an attempt to preserve his work after he realized he was dying, he orchestrated a creative interpretation of inheritance law to give the crown to Jane (the Nine Days' Queen). What a name.
After a century of Scottish rulers and another century of German rulers, Victoria named her successor Edward VII, after so many illustrious Edwards of the past. Since she lived soooo long, he became king as a grandfather. But don't let your oppressive ideas of ageism fool you - he was a fun-loving playboy with a great sense of humor, infamous for his parties and fun times, even in old age. What a great guy.
Finally, Edward VIII did the most courageous thing of any other Edward - he chose Love over the Throne. Forbidden by Parliament to marry an American divorcee, Edward gave the Crown to his brother, married Mrs. Simpson, and lived Happily Ever After in Paris.
So what would Rachel get with a Kingbaby named Edward? She'd get a strong king, a lover, a fun guy, and an authority figure. She'd get a king able to manage law and finances, provide religious and moral guidance, build great architecture, be a patron of the arts, quell social upsrisings and civil war, and fall in love without being a jackass about it.
Clearly, "Edward" is the best name possibile for a Kingbaby.
The Case for Henry
It's been far too long since England has had a Henry. Henry VIII ("The Big Ocho"?) kicked the bucket 460 years ago and they've been bereft of Henries ever since. This is a shame, because having a King Henry makes life much more interesting.
Henry I: Probably had his own dumb brother shot (by an arrow—it was 1100, yo) so he could take over, and holds the English monarch record for acknowledged illegitimate children (20 + !)
Henry II: Married one of the coolest babes in the history of history, Eleanor of Aquitane. Together, they ruled a whole bunch of France, went on a pretty successful Crusade, and then fought like cats in a bag for a while. That’s the kind of thing that gets you portrayed on screen by Peter O’Toole and Katherine Hepburn. (And then later by Patrick Stewart and Glenn Close. I don’t even have to remind you that Patrick Stewart = fantastic, do I?)
Henry III: Dullsville. I’ll just take the hit on this one.
Henry IV: He just pretty much decided he’d be better at the whole “kinging” thing than Richard II, so he locked Richie up and took the throne. Usurpation is the spice of life! That’s either a well-known saying or something I made up just now. You decide.
Henry V: As most historians acknowledge, France has gotten OWNED several times throughout history. But few people OWNED France as thoroughly as Henry V.
Henry VI: Meek, pious, kind of stupid, lost all the stuff his daddy had won in France, got overthrown twice. That . . . that’s not easy to accomplish.
Henry VII: As you should all know by now, Henry VII is my fav-o-rite English monarch. Like John Adams, much of my favor stems from the fact that he is sorely underappreciated. I mean, the man grows up in exile because the current king wants to take him out, overthrows one of the greatest villains in all British history (the abovementioned Richard III), wins the Wars of the Roses, puts down like five major rebellions, founds one of the kickin’est dynasties in Europe ever, and still all anybody knows about him if they know anything at all is that he was greedy. Come on. Anyway, I intend to be The World’s Foremost Henry VII Scholar someday (I mean, since I’m the only one who cares, it should be easy, right?), so it would only be fitting to name my firstborn after him if I were also the future Queen of England.
Henry VIII: The more I learn about Henry VIII, the more intensely I dislike him. However, there’s no doubt that he was a fascinating character, and he and his wives (Catherine! Anne! Jane! Anne! Catherine! Catherine!) are responsible for my initial fascination with English history. Also, I have a totally sweet coffee mug that has a picture of Henry VIII, and then pictures of all his wives that DISAPPEAR when you put hot water in the mug! I’ve got to hand it to Henry VIII--what other monarch could have inspired a drinking apparatus of such greatness?
So if I named my kingbaby Henry, would he kill people? Get married over and over (and over and over)? Usurp something? Deal some serious SMACK to his enemies? Any of these are possible! Clearly, in this age of figurehead monarchs, what the people want--nay, what the people need--is an exciting and unpredictable monarch, not just to liven up their tabloids, but to carry on the fine English tradition of wild and crazy Henries.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
"Why do girls date jerks?"
Because jerks are confident enough to actually ask girls out.
If there's a mystery of the universe you'd like explained, just leave it in the comment section, and I'll get right on it.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
6:32 pm (24 minutes ago)
omg omg omg omg
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
"Wichita State coach Mark Turgeon is set to take over as head coach of Houston's Texas A&M men's basketball team"?
Sincerely (OK, insincerely, if you want to get technical),
P.S.: This is why AP is better than you.
Dear people on the bus,
Two quick suggestions: Listening to music? Use headphones. Also, shower.
Dear the entertainment media,
I saw The Sopranos once. I don't care that it's going off the air. It's taken such ridiculously long breaks between seasons anyway, no one would notice if you didn't keep whining about it.
Friday, April 6, 2007
1. Anger: So he just shows up at Kentucky, with his blue windbreaker, when he couldn't even be bothered to wear a maroon tie when he coached for us, and then he talks about how the Kentucky fans are so great and it was so hard to play in front of only 8,000 Aggies and how the Kentucky players are the most important people to him in the whole world and how he's a "country boy" and a "handshake man" (HANDSHAKE MAN?!?) and I just wish somebody would wipe that smirk off his face . . . well, you get the idea.
2. Betrayal: he didn't tell any of his players in person. Not a one. He left a message for Joe Jones and text-messaged the rest, apparently. Josh Carter found out from SportsCenter. Nice. And, if we're looking for personal betrayal, there's always this:
“I am thankful for the commitment Texas A&M continues to make to allow us to do the things we need to do, to achieve our ultimate goal—winning a national championship,” Gillispie said. “The commitment has been there since day one and continues to grow stronger still. While it’s embarrassing to me to be compensated so well to perform my passion for a school I love, I am sincerely appreciative of the efforts of Bill Byrne, our university administration, the board of regents and everyone associated with Texas A&M for their personal support they continue to show. We will continue to do our best to try and make the Texas A&M family proud.”
March 30, 2007. I guess he meant he'd continue to do his best to make the A&M family proud . . . for about a week.
3. Resignation: Of course, coaches lie all the time. Breathe, break down game tape, eat, lie. And Kentucky . . . well they care about basketball there. A lot. And even though I still think Billy would eventually have made more than the football coach if he'd stayed at A&M, basketball would never be THE THING for Aggies. And for a really ambitious guy . . . yeah, I can see why he'd choose them over us.
4. Sadness: A&M was really, really horrible at basketball before Billy Gillispie showed up. Some sports columnist put it a way I'd never heard it before: Billy won three NCAA tournament games in three years, the same amount A&M had won in the previous ninety-two (92) years. I think I can leave it at that.
5. Utter Bereft Depression: If you'd asked me a month ago what my reaction would be in this situation, I think this would be my answer. I really love Aggie basketball, but that never would have happened if not for Billy. And I love Bobble Billy, and now he has to live in the back of my closet. And what about my cool hologram poster that switches from (women's coach) Gary Blair to Billy? What am I going to do with that? And the matching magnet? And what about my BG-GB basketball shirt? I mean, it doesn't even make sense to say that it stands for "Bob Gates Gets Booty" anymore, because he's gone, too! And what about the recruits Billy had signed? Will they still come? What will happen to Aggie basketball? What will happen?
6. Magnanimy: On the other hand, Billy left us in a much better situation than he found us. He's a great coach, and I'm sure he'll go on to do great things. I've said it before--that man is going to win a national championship someday, it's only a question of what team he'll do it with.
7. Pettiness: But wouldn't it be great if he FAILED? And, like, didn't even GET to the tournament? And then the Kentucky fans RODE HIM OUT ON A RAIL? (Answer: yes it would.)
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm going to start referring to him as "The Handshake Man." And make sure it, you know, drips with sarcasm.
8. Hope: Maybe we'll get a new coach that's just as good (I know I should say even better, but face it--I can't get that hopeful). What if . . . what if we get . . . BRUISER FLINT, possessor of the greatest name in basketball? (Do click on that link. Totally worth it.)
That would be awesome.
Also awesome? This picture from Texags:
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Monday, April 2, 2007
8:44: Oh, I'm sorry, according to Billy Packer, it's Billy "Dunnovan."
8:48: Why in the world do basketball games need aerial blimp coverage? (Hint: they don't.)
8:49: White guy dunk alert! And (heh heh) it was by Terwilliger, which name always makes me laugh. Not only is it just a funny combination of sounds, but . . . Bob Terwilliger!8:51: Jim Nantz: "They call him [I don't know, some OSU guy] Microwave because he can heat up so quickly!" They do? That's pretty lame of them.
8:53: Jim Nantz: "And Florida has a double-digit lead!" Oh joy. Thad Matta needs to take a timeout because, you guessed it, his team is REALLY TIRED.
8:55: Oh good, that commercial with hip-hop "Sweet Home Alabama." Who thought that would be a good idea?
9:04: An 11-point lead for Florida going into halftime. How ideal.
I think I'm going to stop now, partly because I should be doing something more productive, and partly because this is a really cranky entry. I will make one final point, though: You know those Hartford commercials with the bad CGI elk? Couldn't they get a better CGI elk? Or a real elk? I keep thinking a real elk would be cheaper. And would look better. Everybody wins, including the elk, who'd probably get a salt lick in addition to becoming the most famous elk around.
Edited to Add: 10:13: The highlight of the game--they showed Jim Tressel (the OSU football coach)!
Oh my gosh, he's so adorable. He looks like Harry Truman in a sweater vest. Too bad he doesn't have much to be happy about--just like the last national championship matchup between these two freakin' schools. (You'd think there would be enough national championship games to go around, but noooooooooo. Win hogs.)