From a gal who is a stranger in her own land.
T h e . W e a t h e r
H u g . M e
*HUGS*! give merserene more *hugs*
Get hugs of your own
P u s h . M y . B u t t o n s
Y o u . R a n g ?
Anonymous on In case you ...
Anonymous on Today is a holy ...
F o l k s . a n d . T h i n g s
All Music
Alohalani's Philoblogsophy
Apostrophe Protection Society
As I Was Passing
Astro Pic of the Day
Banzai Descent
BBC
Blibber Blabber
Cartoon Yourself
Do you speak Engrish?
Eye Candy Blog
Fidlmath
Got Time to Waste?
Landmark Theatres
Makeup Alley
Olivia's London Dispatches
Omniglot
Religious Tolerance
Reverse "Engrish"
Ripple
SETI@home
The Best Imitation of Myself
The Jia Li Diaries
Two Ladies & Their TVs
Waiter Rant
Wikipedia
WWDN
F i l e . U n d e r
beliefs
blogging
childhood
cultural differences
daily grind
environment
eye candy
family
friends
immigration
languages
listening
living
oh no you didnt
pep talk to self
politicking
quizzes & frou frou
reading
shop til i drop
social consciousness
technology
thats entertainment
travels
tutti mangia
vanity
watching
world of cinema
B a c k . (B) l o g
today
October 2009
September 2009
February 2009
January 2009
October 2008
June 2008
March 2008
November 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
K i t c h e n . C o u n t e r
perused *loading* x
©2003-2007
On my way to breakfast, I walked behind a guy student whose shorts were half way down his behind, and his pajama-print boxers were mooning the world.
Although I've seen this type of thing a million times before, I can't help but wonder: Why?! And immediately following that: How the heck do they keep the shorts/pants from falling completely?
Ok, I just had a thought, but I'm not gonna go there.
Yeah, I'm a liberal and I shouldn't care because it doesn't affect me personally, but still. My proper upbringing compels me to have that gut reaction. And common sense just begs the question because it makes no sense.
Heck, people like me have a hard enough time trying to find pants that fit properly, so what's the deal with deliberately wearing pants that don't?
I'll just say that the pants hanging off the butt thing is so unattractive, and I can almost hear myself telling these kids, "Sonny, pull your pants up and dress like a proper young man!"
thus spake merserene on November 30, 2005 09:35 |
link | comments (10) |
file under oh no you didnt, cultural differences
Sunset outside of my window. Ignore the power lines. 
thus spake merserene on November 27, 2005 16:16 |
link | comments (13) |
file under eye candy
I loved coloring books when I was young. Unfailingly, I gave the princesses magenta hair, and the princes neon blue hair - two of my favorite colors out of the 48 markers set I had - but no matter. I loved seeing color on a white piece of paper.
That love of colors never goes away. For what is playing with different makeup combinations but another manifestation of that desire to splash color across a blank canvas?
But I must stop reading makeup boards and drooling over things. Now.
thus spake merserene on November 22, 2005 17:31 |
link | comments (11) |
file under childhood, vanity
One of the senior Democrat leaders, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, has called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
In response, the White House, through its mouthpiece Scott McClellan, has said that Murtha is "endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
Note that Murtha is a respected veteran, a retired Marine colonel who earned a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts for his service (wounded twice) in Vietnam.
Murtha voted for the resolution to invade Iraq in 2003, but now calls the decision to retain the troops "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," and says the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is "uniting the enemy against us."
Don't you think there is loud message when someone, who supported the invasion, is now calling for the troops to come home?
Don't you think it's especially compelling when someone, who has held a high position in the military and has been at war himself, says that our continued presence is a huge mistake?
Where is that purported love for our troops and support for our soldiers? I get it. It doesn't exist when a soldier doesn't support your decision to go to war. Instead, just call him names as if he's a radical nutjob, and compare him to Michael Moore as to distract people away from a valid issue.
Sad.
thus spake merserene on November 18, 2005 19:07 |
link | comments (6) |
file under politicking
Along the lines of discussing "Pride and Prejudice," here's an article on the modern "versions" of literary classics.
And we thought Hollywood renditions were bad. Good god.
Take a stab at the following -
"5Sistrs WntngHsbnds. NwMeninTwn-Bingly&Darcy. Fit&Loadd.BigSis Jane Fals 4B,2ndSisLiz H8s D Coz Hes Proud. Slimy Soljr Wikam Sys DHs Shady Past.Trns Out Hes Actuly ARlyNysGuy &RlyFancysLiz. She Decyds She Lyks Him.Evry1 Gts Maryd."
Or -
"FeudTween 2hses- Montague&Capulet. RomeoMfalls_<3w/_JulietC@mary Secretly Bt R kils J's Coz &&is banishd. J fakes Death. As Part of Plan2b-w/R Bt_leter Bt It Nvr Reachs Him. Evry1confuzd-bothLuvrs kil Emselves."
Maybe I'm getting too old but 1) they hurt my eyes, 2) it takes me longer to read one of these than to find a nice, real English excerpt online, and 3) what the hell do some of the gobbledygook "words" mean?!
IMaGInE ThaT CLIff NoTes UsEd To BE tHe EaSY, ChEAterS wAy OuT!!1!!!
Sometimes it really isn't so awful to sit down and read a nice book. You just may enjoy it. Even if you are a busy student.
thus spake merserene on November 17, 2005 05:20 |
link | comments (7) |
file under technology, reading, languages
"Katrina Cough" Floats Around - an excerpt from the L.A. Times
The storm's residual mold and muck may be causing respiratory illnesses in people who have returned home.
NEW ORLEANS — A large number of people along the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts are developing a condition that some have dubbed "Katrina cough," believed to be linked to mold and dust circulating after Hurricane Katrina.
Health officials say they are trying to determine how widespread the problem is. There are suggestions that it is popping up regularly among people who have returned to storm-ravaged areas, particularly New Orleans.
Dr. Dennis Casey, one of the few ear, nose and throat doctors seeing patients in New Orleans, called the condition "very prevalent." And Dr. Kevin Jordan, director of medical affairs at Touro Infirmary and Memorial Medical Center in downtown New Orleans, said the hospital had seen at least a 25% increase in complaints regarding sinus headaches, congestion, runny noses and sore throats since Katrina.
In most cases, Casey said, patients appear to be "allergic to the filth they are exposed to." Those allergies make the patients more susceptible to respiratory illness, including bacterial bronchitis and sinusitis...
Lovely. Just what I was looking forward to!
Certain entities have been pushing reports from the Environmental Protection Agency on how safe the water and air are. I don't believe a word of it. You can test and test, but ultimately it comes down to how people physically react to the unseen.
I hope the city and certain institutions are prepared for lawsuits, for telling people and/or forcing people to go back into town.
thus spake merserene on November 15, 2005 20:53 |
link | comments (3) |
file under living, environment
In case you didn't hear, the US version of Pride and Prejudice has an extended ending that is apparently "sweeter" and more suited to the American audience, whereas the British test audience hated the extended ending.
I'd like to ask, who the heck did they poll here in America?! They didn't poll me, that's for sure.
While I loved the movie, I found myself waxing uncomfortable in my chair at the very end. SPOILER alert - do not read if you don't wish to know!
So, the "real" ending of the film goes like this: After being confronted by Lady Catherine de Bourg, Elizabeth couldn't sleep all night; she awoke first thing in the morning and walked through the fog to be by herself in the meadows. Along came Mr. Darcy, also sleepless and troubled by his aunt's visit to Elizabeth, who wanted to ask her if she had changed her feelings for him at all. She basically told him she did by taking his hand and kissing it, and their happy union (and a new chapter) was symbolized by the rising sun. They then went back to the Bennetts, where Mr. Darcy asked Mr. Bennett for Elizabeth's hand, and Mr. Bennett gave his consent.
Sappy enough already, really. I would've loved how everything would've been left to the sweet imagination of the viewer.
Except, there was more. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth were sitting by a lake, where Elizabeth appeared to be stroking Mr. Darcy's calf. (?!) Mr. Darcy's pants appeared to have been rolled up. (?!?!) Looked like they had been sitting together and dipping their feet in the water. Elizabeth went on to tell Mr. Darcy by what names he should call her, and Mr. Darcy told Elizabeth that he would only call her "Mrs. Darcy" when he's absolutely delighted...whereupon he proceeded to call her Mrs. Darcy 4 or 5 times, culminating in a kiss at the very end.
Goodness. Does the American audience think a romantic film isn't one without a gratuitous kiss?
I must agree with those who believe that extended ending is inconsistent with the book and dumbs down the audience. Or rather, it seems the American test audience demanded to be dumbed down.
Have they even read the book? The story tugs at your heart strings because of that almost-but-not-quite tension between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. They are both proud characters, which is why fire clashed with fire throughout the entire book and made it such a pleasure to read. A big part of their misunderstanding comes from the fact Mr. Darcy is clumsy at expressing his feelings and at wooing women. Suddenly, in the last couple of minutes in the film, he's this great lover who knows exactly what to say and do?
The ending of the book is sweet, but not so saccharine that it threatens to give you a cavity. Making it so does Jane Austen and the book quite a disservice.
There is a UK petition to show the extended ending in the UK. I say there should be a petition to get rid of the extended ending, period.
* * *
On the other hand, please don't let this rant discourage you from seeing this version of Pride and Prejudice. 1995 TV version aside (which I have yet to see), this is the best silver screen adaptation of the novel, and that's saying a lot. Although the 1940 version with Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier is a classic, that version is based on a screenplay and not the novel itself, and the loyal reader will inevitably find many inconsistencies with the book.
So, ignore the last few moments of this film if you need to. The music score is an elegant selection of classical music that accompanies the film at the perfect moments. The cinematography is simply breathtaking, especially of the English countryside. The extensive use of wide angle shots for the exteriors really contribute to the beauty of it all - those who love big manors and castles and cliffs and rolling hills will really enjoy the eye candy and wish you live in England, even if it does look cold and damp. There is plenty of humor, too, for those who are afraid they'd be bored to tears at the thought of a Jane Austen movie. Acting is superb throughout; even Keira Knightly surprised me, as IMHO she's sometimes the female counterpart of Orlando Bloom (read: can't act his way out of a paper bag but is supposedly nice to look at).
Conclusion: Loved it. Go see it.
thus spake merserene on November 14, 2005 17:09 |
link | comments (11) |
file under world of cinema
To be fair to drivers, not all folks who are behind the wheel are careless, irresponsible folks who want to mow down pedestrians. Nay, there are apparently bicyclists who want to be mowed down by cars.
We were driving in the middle of nowhere suburbia this weekend. It was dark, and though there were street lights, visibility was still somewhat low. Having the green light, we were approaching the intersection when a bicyclist zoomed across the intersecting road. That side clearly had a red light, and that bicyclist was clearly playing with his life. We were some feet away and doing 30 or 40 mph; under daylight circumstances it's doubtful if we would've seen him coming or would've been able to stop in time.
It's a good thing the bicyclist - looked like a young teenager - pedalled quickly and cleared the intersection before we got there.
R and I both yelled, "Jesus!" I don't remember R ever exclaiming and invoking JC's name, so either my influence has rubbed off or that was one heck of a close call.
What was that kid thinking?! Maybe they ought to license people who want to bike on the roads, too.
thus spake merserene on November 14, 2005 15:09 |
link | comments (3) |
file under oh no you didnt
Intelligent design, part deux. An excerpt -
Robertson Warns Pennsylvania Voters of God's Wrath
Eight 'intelligent design' school boad members lost election
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.
Robertson, a former Republican presidential candidate and founder of the influential Christian Broadcasting Network and Christian Coalition, has made similar apocalyptic warnings and provocative statements before...
"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."
"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said.
Looks like not all hope is lost in the US.
Oh Pat Robertson, you make me laugh. At least you're keeping us on our feet.
When were you appointed god's messenger, and for that matter, god?
thus spake merserene on November 11, 2005 10:10 |
link | comments (6) |
file under reading, beliefs, politicking
To avoid making last week a complete bitching fest (though not succeeding very much), with the exception of R, some people on the street, and the police, no one else knew that I almost got hit by a car.
No joke. Even in a city where 95% of drivers actually yield to pedestrians, you still can't be too careful. But even with care, you can't prevent other people from making mistakes.
I was coming home one evening, got off the bus, and was ready to cross the 1 street to get to my block. Another guy got off the bus with me, and we had gotten to the median. We waited, looked, saw one car verrry slowly approaching. Looked like he was going to stop, and he was far enough so that even if he didn't stop, had he continued at the same pace, we would've made it to the other side.
Next thing I knew, the guy with me had walked 2 paces in front of me, and at that very moment, the driver's side of the station wagon was in front of my face. It had hit the guy, the guy rolled over several times, and ended up in the crosswalk of the intersecting street.
At times like those you can pay attention to only one thing. Only occurred to me seconds afterwards to get out of the street in case other cars approached.
I finally understand why it is difficult for eye witnesses to recall details. You're still reeling from the shock that you just can't think rationally. It's a good thing the station wagon actually stopped, and the driver actually got out to check on the guy he had just hit. Otherwise, I don't think anyone would've caught his license plate number.
What the hell was the driver thinking?! It was obvious to me that instead of slowing down, he accelerated.
Had I walked just that much faster, I would've been hit, too.
Either the police was patrolling the neighborhood already, or that someone had quick access to 911, but within 2 minutes the police came. Questioned me, questioned other witnesses. What surprised me was how detailed were some of his questions, and how, even though the accident had just happened, I still had to pause to think about some of the details.
How do you tell how fast the car was going? It was obviously very slow; otherwise I wouldn't have risked my life to cross. But I'm pretty sure it sped up.
Where exactly was the guy hit? Right in front of my face, that's where. No more than two feet from me. It should've been right in the crosswalk because that was where we were. The car had to come at least that far.
There was a witness who actually came up to me and said he thought the guy got hit outside of the crosswalk. Since neither of us were jaywalking outside of the crosswalk lines, I fail to see how that could've happened.
In the end, the guy who got hit was ok. He laid on the ground for a long time, though. Hard to tell if he was physically hurt, but in retrospect he was likely suffering from shock. The police had him in the back of the cruiser and had planned to take him to the station when I left. The guy told me he only had some scrapes and bruises, and thanked me for my concern for him. He had tears in his eyes. R had come and walked me home.
The police never called me afterwards. I didn't expect them to, since I gave a detailed statement, and the guy probably isn't pressing any charges.
What I would really like to know, though, is the driver's own account of what had happened, and if the driver was penalized.
What a terrible week that was.
thus spake merserene on November 10, 2005 11:37 |
link | comments (7) |
file under living, oh no you didnt
Kansas School Board Redefines Science - an excerpt
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- At the risk of re-igniting the same heated nationwide debate it sparked six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
All six of those who voted for the standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted against them.
"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. "It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican...
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Despite what the Sci-fi channel may tell you, John Edwards is NOT science.
Of particular irony is the quote that the new standard "gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today."
Is this what our public school system has come to?
thus spake merserene on November 08, 2005 17:06 |
link | comments (13) |
file under reading, beliefs, oh no you didnt
Um. Law school has seriously fried my brain cells and impeded my ability to churn out liberal artsy, esoteric papers on how cinematic devices represent legal values in relation to certain social constructive terms.
I love films. I love talking about films. I've been down the esoteric road. I received a four-year liberal arts education with a diploma to prove it. But even I get cynical and wary of highly philosophomoric papers that require not unsophisticated knowledge ranging anywhere from psychoanalysis to political thought to styles of filmmaking.
Forgive me if this offends, but I can't bear reading and writing papers that require 2 minutes of scrutiny and interpretation for every word (not to mention something like 5 of them in a row, then you really got a doozy there), and leave you no more enlightened than when you began. They seem so...pretentious.
Patience is a virtue but I never claim to be virtuous. Seriously, who writes that stuff, and where do they get the time?
I say what I say because I need to communicate. I do not believe there can be effective communication when people don't have an idea what the heck you're talking about because every word is so pregnant with meaning that it threatens to give birth to quintuplets at any moment.
I tell it like it is.
Which is why I'm having such a hard time coming up with a thesis for my paper that is due on Wednesday.
thus spake merserene on November 07, 2005 13:42 |
link | comments (9) |
file under oh no you didnt
