I'm baffled. There are only candy remnants and a few Halloween items in stores. But Halloween's tomorrow? It's not like it was last week or something and I missed it. Right?? After this morning driving to a lot of stores trying to find Halloween baking stuff, I feel a bit like it's the Twilight Zone.
Now Christmas stuff was out in all its glory but the H'ween stuff was gone. I do think partly ransacked but also just gone - from shelves, displays, prime corner spots. Wha...??
Tomorrow night is my church's Halloween party for youth and kids. I'm baking cupcakes and wanted to get cute holiday cupcake wrappers and sprinkles to make them special. I remember seeing all this baking stuff a few weeks ago at Target so I went over this morning after a business mtg (I also went to my neighborhood Safeway last night just to check but there was nothing at all. That was the beginning of my confusion.)
But Target had been invaded by the Thanksgiving and Christmas elves. So I went to Michael's, a craft store that also is a great spot to buy baking supplies and usually goes ape-crazy over holiday decorations/crap. But nada. I asked an employee who said it's all gone and that the sale was last week. I know that Michael's does sales early but I didn't think they basically threw out ther merchandise before the holiday even happened. He said anything left would be in the middle aisle. I wandered over and found other confused people like myself poking around in the pathetic two boxes of random Halloween stuff. A woman said, "This is weird" and I said, "I know, isn't it tomorrow?" and she said, "I'll head over to Target" and I said, "There's nothing there either, just candy."
I walked over to Kmart and found random, nonsale (??) items. I picked up a sprinkle variety mix and some mini-cupcake wrappers but there weren't any normal size ones. I went to Safeway to pick up white icing (no orange icing to be found) and still, no Halloween stuff besides candy.
I mean, I don't think of myself as a procrastinator but as a "just-on-time" kind of person. But did I miss the memo that said Oct. 1 is the new "on-time" prep date for Halloween and Oct. 30 is the new "too late, so sorry" date? I feel like I remember going to buy Easter stuff the day before Easter - on sale (yey) but there. Stores understood that parents sometimes buy right before the holiday. Is Halloween different? Are we supposed to decorate a month or more in advance? Or has something else changed?
Still confused...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
I want a nappie
I feel really tired this morning. And sore from Ben's birthday Ultimate Frisbee game yesterday by Lake Merritt. I'm totally weak sauce because I didn't even play the full two hours! But yes, I am sore. It was really fun - a lot of people came out to play/watch and then we went to Leaning Tower of Pizza for dinner after. A nice big group. Happy Belated Birthday, Ben!!
I think I'm mostly tired from the good but long wkend. A lot of change that I don't want to write about yet but change is in the air. We had a day-long JJaM cell retreat on Saturday and I really appreciated the thought and care the core team put into leading the day. It was very caring and organic - talking through how the group started, walking through a timeline with key moments/events/Scripture, and now talking about splitting into three groups bc we're so big. I've been very grateful how everyone is ok with the change. That feels so rare - to have people that really like and enjoy each other, be ok with breaking up. But I feel like we all want more growth - in terms of smaller groups will give more time for deeper sharing but also more "room" to invite new people. I'm excited and I like the peeps in my group :) I like sharing my life with these people.
I want to pull out my Pilates mat and take a nap in my office. I now work alone again after the last two employees were gone on Friday (one resigned, one "let go"). Nappy time. Maybe not though, always things to do, and especially after I'm mopping up after two left employees.
Perhaps more writing and news will come this week...
I think I'm mostly tired from the good but long wkend. A lot of change that I don't want to write about yet but change is in the air. We had a day-long JJaM cell retreat on Saturday and I really appreciated the thought and care the core team put into leading the day. It was very caring and organic - talking through how the group started, walking through a timeline with key moments/events/Scripture, and now talking about splitting into three groups bc we're so big. I've been very grateful how everyone is ok with the change. That feels so rare - to have people that really like and enjoy each other, be ok with breaking up. But I feel like we all want more growth - in terms of smaller groups will give more time for deeper sharing but also more "room" to invite new people. I'm excited and I like the peeps in my group :) I like sharing my life with these people.
I want to pull out my Pilates mat and take a nap in my office. I now work alone again after the last two employees were gone on Friday (one resigned, one "let go"). Nappy time. Maybe not though, always things to do, and especially after I'm mopping up after two left employees.
Perhaps more writing and news will come this week...
Friday, October 26, 2007
Taxing the rich (that means you, Hedge Fund Mgr!)
An article from Salon.com titled:
Why Democrats are afraid to raise taxes on the rich
subtitled
Could it have something to do with the recent affection of hedge-fund managers for the Democratic Party?
Having worked for a hedge fund (though only as an EA/Office Coordinator), I became exposed to this whole new world. Lots and lots of money. The article says some hedge fund managers bring home a billion dollars annually (ok that's rare but it is up there) and quote:
The 25 highest-paid hedge-fund managers are earning more than the CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 combined.
Think about that for a minute. 25 > 500...
Working first for a top investment banking firm then the hedge fund, I started to learn about the very rich. How much money they make, how much money they have control over, what happens when one man (yes, almost all are men) makes one decision and how much that changes things for a LOT of other people.
The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.
Wow. Half of America makes only 12.8 percent of our national income. All those $18K and $35K jobs amount to a little over 10% of our nation's income. Income that is taxed to provide for our scho0ls, freeways, Social Security system, government.
That means that the wealthiest Americans, who are now taxed at a marginal rate of 35 percent, would go back to paying the 38 percent marginal rate they paid under Bill Clinton. So far, however, no Democrat has suggested that the nation should raise the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans above that 38 percent, as will probably be necessary if America is to avoid an economic meltdown in the years ahead.
This surprised me as I actually thought rich people were taxed higher than 35% or even 38% in Clinton's day. But then I remembered that bonuses are taxed higher, which is where a lot of hedge fund and i. bankers roll in the dough. I did not know that "i. banker" was a common term until I entered the GS world. I grew up with my dad starting his own small chemical and science supply company (with a peak of about 10 employees in two locations), having some hard times, then recovering and still working too hard at 59. My dad works ALL the time -on weekends, does dangerous all-nighters with chemicals which scare me - and I wish he had it easier. My mom works part-time as accountant and office coordinator. All to say, the corporate world and all the positions it contained seemed unknown and foreign to me for years. I didn't grow up with a parent who had a 9-5 job which in ways was good, no complaining. But along with my love for nonprofits, it took me longer to get over my wariness and a little fear of the big bad corporate monster. I'm really glad for my last three years in that world. I feel stronger for it.
Back to the program! And the author's solution:
What's fair? I'd say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich, meaning those earning over $500,000 per year. I'd also suggest an annual wealth tax of one-half of 1 percent on the net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can't be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under John Kennedy to the 70 percent range. You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship.
I agree, tax the rich more. Kinda simple to me. But then I'm not trying to get elected and paying for my campaign with those very same rich people who are also probably my friends.
Why Democrats are afraid to raise taxes on the rich
subtitled
Could it have something to do with the recent affection of hedge-fund managers for the Democratic Party?
Having worked for a hedge fund (though only as an EA/Office Coordinator), I became exposed to this whole new world. Lots and lots of money. The article says some hedge fund managers bring home a billion dollars annually (ok that's rare but it is up there) and quote:
The 25 highest-paid hedge-fund managers are earning more than the CEOs of the largest 500 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 combined.
Think about that for a minute. 25 > 500...
Working first for a top investment banking firm then the hedge fund, I started to learn about the very rich. How much money they make, how much money they have control over, what happens when one man (yes, almost all are men) makes one decision and how much that changes things for a LOT of other people.
The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earn more than 21 percent of all income. That's a postwar record. The bottom 50 percent of all Americans, when all their wages are combined, earn just 12.8 percent of the nation's income.
Wow. Half of America makes only 12.8 percent of our national income. All those $18K and $35K jobs amount to a little over 10% of our nation's income. Income that is taxed to provide for our scho0ls, freeways, Social Security system, government.
That means that the wealthiest Americans, who are now taxed at a marginal rate of 35 percent, would go back to paying the 38 percent marginal rate they paid under Bill Clinton. So far, however, no Democrat has suggested that the nation should raise the marginal tax rate on the richest Americans above that 38 percent, as will probably be necessary if America is to avoid an economic meltdown in the years ahead.
This surprised me as I actually thought rich people were taxed higher than 35% or even 38% in Clinton's day. But then I remembered that bonuses are taxed higher, which is where a lot of hedge fund and i. bankers roll in the dough. I did not know that "i. banker" was a common term until I entered the GS world. I grew up with my dad starting his own small chemical and science supply company (with a peak of about 10 employees in two locations), having some hard times, then recovering and still working too hard at 59. My dad works ALL the time -on weekends, does dangerous all-nighters with chemicals which scare me - and I wish he had it easier. My mom works part-time as accountant and office coordinator. All to say, the corporate world and all the positions it contained seemed unknown and foreign to me for years. I didn't grow up with a parent who had a 9-5 job which in ways was good, no complaining. But along with my love for nonprofits, it took me longer to get over my wariness and a little fear of the big bad corporate monster. I'm really glad for my last three years in that world. I feel stronger for it.
Back to the program! And the author's solution:
What's fair? I'd say a 50 percent marginal tax rate on the very rich, meaning those earning over $500,000 per year. I'd also suggest an annual wealth tax of one-half of 1 percent on the net worth of people holding more than $5 million in total assets. Can't be done, you say? Well, the highest marginal tax rate under Republican Dwight Eisenhower was 91 percent. It dropped under John Kennedy to the 70 percent range. You say the rich will leave the country rather than face a marginal tax of 50 percent? Let them, and take away their citizenship.
I agree, tax the rich more. Kinda simple to me. But then I'm not trying to get elected and paying for my campaign with those very same rich people who are also probably my friends.
What rights do we have over our organs and bodies?
A lot of organ-related articles keep coming up on websites I read lately, which makes me more interested and I start researching it further.
This article in the SF Chronicle titled "Woman sues San Mateo County coroner for keeping son's heart" brings the topic up today. Her son died of an undetected heart ailment and the coroner took the heart "for testing to verify the cause of death after an autopsy" and then "the autopsy found there was probable cause to conclude he had died of a heart ailment, but the heart needed to be shipped to Stanford to be sure" (quotes from article). The coroner is quoted as saying this is not an uncommon practice.
Sounds reasonable... except the mother wasn't told. So when do coroners have to notify the family and when don't they?
Jenkins-Toney [mother's attorney] maintains that coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so.
At the center of the legal dispute are two sections of state law, one dealing with body tissue, the other body parts.
The first section gives coroners the right to retain body tissue removed at autopsy. The other gives coroners the power to keep body parts removed at autopsy if they believe it is "necessary or advisable for scientific investigation and training," including enlisting help from outside labs or hospitals.
But that section also says body parts can be given to hospitals for research or similar purposes only with a relative's consent or if the dead person previously made such arrangements. Coroners may proceed without a relative's consent if they make a reasonable effort to obtain it.
These laws are news to me but good to know. What bothers me is the mom buried her son, thinking his whole body was there, and it wasn't. She says she was devastated to learn his heart was missing, that she hadn't been told and when she called the coroner, he said she'd have to pay to dig her son up and rebury him. That seems unfair.
This article on Slate.com talks about the ethical price of organ donorship. Similar to the blog post I wrote awhile back on another Slate.com article regarding global desperately poor people selling their organs for food (here), the author addresses the sticky issue of when should the government regulate who can give organs when. Is it patronizing to citizens to tell them they can't sell their kidney or eyeball? Another Slate organ article "Who owns a donated kidney?" here. I think they have the monopoly on this subject, or at least the monopoly on easily linking article by topics.
Current US Laws:
1) Selling your organs (any of them) is illegal.
2) A dead body cannot own property and cannot be property. Thus heirs have no rights over the dead body of a deceased family member*.
3) You can't sue an organ donor network for giving away a kidney, even if the donor's family wanted you to have it (at least in NY).
4) You don't have rights to tissue removed from your body, or any proceeds/research done with that tissue (not sure if I'm stating that correctly, more below**).
5) Coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so (it doesn't appear that doctors can remove tissue without your consent/knowledge and keep it, according to #4).
*From article - "They can be "lawfully in possession" of a body, which only means they have the right to bury or cremate it, order or refuse an autopsy, and authorize the donation of organs. This right of lawful possession allows the next of kin to steward the body from the deathbed to the grave—but not to sell it or give it away to a friend."
** From article - 'In one seminal 1990 case, the California Supreme Court ruled against John Moore, a businessman who sued the University of California after doctors created—and patented—a cell line derived from tissue in his cancerous spleen, which the doctors had removed. His tissue produced an extremely profitable antibacterial and cancer-fighting cell line, and Moore sought a share of the profits, claiming a property right to the byproducts of his own tissue. Though the court allowed that doctors might have deceived Moore by not explaining their intentions for his spleen, it forcefully reiterated that Moore had no property right to his tissue. Several other cases have addressed the legal status of embryos in situations in which divorced couples have fought for "custody" rights; one Tennessee case established that while embryos—like corpses—were neither persons nor property, they nevertheless "occupy an interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life."'
This article in the SF Chronicle titled "Woman sues San Mateo County coroner for keeping son's heart" brings the topic up today. Her son died of an undetected heart ailment and the coroner took the heart "for testing to verify the cause of death after an autopsy" and then "the autopsy found there was probable cause to conclude he had died of a heart ailment, but the heart needed to be shipped to Stanford to be sure" (quotes from article). The coroner is quoted as saying this is not an uncommon practice.
Sounds reasonable... except the mother wasn't told. So when do coroners have to notify the family and when don't they?
Jenkins-Toney [mother's attorney] maintains that coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so.
At the center of the legal dispute are two sections of state law, one dealing with body tissue, the other body parts.
The first section gives coroners the right to retain body tissue removed at autopsy. The other gives coroners the power to keep body parts removed at autopsy if they believe it is "necessary or advisable for scientific investigation and training," including enlisting help from outside labs or hospitals.
But that section also says body parts can be given to hospitals for research or similar purposes only with a relative's consent or if the dead person previously made such arrangements. Coroners may proceed without a relative's consent if they make a reasonable effort to obtain it.
These laws are news to me but good to know. What bothers me is the mom buried her son, thinking his whole body was there, and it wasn't. She says she was devastated to learn his heart was missing, that she hadn't been told and when she called the coroner, he said she'd have to pay to dig her son up and rebury him. That seems unfair.
This article on Slate.com talks about the ethical price of organ donorship. Similar to the blog post I wrote awhile back on another Slate.com article regarding global desperately poor people selling their organs for food (here), the author addresses the sticky issue of when should the government regulate who can give organs when. Is it patronizing to citizens to tell them they can't sell their kidney or eyeball? Another Slate organ article "Who owns a donated kidney?" here. I think they have the monopoly on this subject, or at least the monopoly on easily linking article by topics.
Current US Laws:
1) Selling your organs (any of them) is illegal.
2) A dead body cannot own property and cannot be property. Thus heirs have no rights over the dead body of a deceased family member*.
3) You can't sue an organ donor network for giving away a kidney, even if the donor's family wanted you to have it (at least in NY).
4) You don't have rights to tissue removed from your body, or any proceeds/research done with that tissue (not sure if I'm stating that correctly, more below**).
5) Coroners can legally remove and keep tissue, but not entire body parts, unless they get family consent or make a reasonable effort to do so (it doesn't appear that doctors can remove tissue without your consent/knowledge and keep it, according to #4).
*From article - "They can be "lawfully in possession" of a body, which only means they have the right to bury or cremate it, order or refuse an autopsy, and authorize the donation of organs. This right of lawful possession allows the next of kin to steward the body from the deathbed to the grave—but not to sell it or give it away to a friend."
** From article - 'In one seminal 1990 case, the California Supreme Court ruled against John Moore, a businessman who sued the University of California after doctors created—and patented—a cell line derived from tissue in his cancerous spleen, which the doctors had removed. His tissue produced an extremely profitable antibacterial and cancer-fighting cell line, and Moore sought a share of the profits, claiming a property right to the byproducts of his own tissue. Though the court allowed that doctors might have deceived Moore by not explaining their intentions for his spleen, it forcefully reiterated that Moore had no property right to his tissue. Several other cases have addressed the legal status of embryos in situations in which divorced couples have fought for "custody" rights; one Tennessee case established that while embryos—like corpses—were neither persons nor property, they nevertheless "occupy an interim category that entitles them to special respect because of their potential for human life."'
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Spoiler for The A.B.C. Murders by Agatha Christie
Again, ha ha, because I'm sure no one cares that I'm spoiling the ending. But fair warning anyway!
Wow, I was right again. I am surprised. Yes, someone wanted the third guy dead so he very creatively came up with an elaborate to say the least scheme to kill two other people and make it look like a serial murderer did them all. I do feel like I was tipped off because this book was written differently than her other novels (perhaps bc it was one of her earlier ones?). In the beginning, there are a list of characters that will be appearing and the third guy was mentioned with two other friends/family characters. The other two victims only had one family/friend mentioned. That felt like a big clue. And though there was a "D" murder, the fact that in general the plot seemed to end with the "C" murder, seemed like the latter was a key point.
And after what I wrote yesterday about her post-WWII books being more interesting bc she weaves in the war's aftermath into the characters' lives, I stand corrected. In The A.B.C. Murders, published in 1935, there is a character with pretty severe PTSD and mental/physical injuries from WWI. I was reflecting on how close the two wars were for Europe especially where a lot of the actual fighting took place. Only a little over twenty years. That's like something that ended in 1986 or so in America starting over again. 1986 doesn't feel that long ago.
Wow, I was right again. I am surprised. Yes, someone wanted the third guy dead so he very creatively came up with an elaborate to say the least scheme to kill two other people and make it look like a serial murderer did them all. I do feel like I was tipped off because this book was written differently than her other novels (perhaps bc it was one of her earlier ones?). In the beginning, there are a list of characters that will be appearing and the third guy was mentioned with two other friends/family characters. The other two victims only had one family/friend mentioned. That felt like a big clue. And though there was a "D" murder, the fact that in general the plot seemed to end with the "C" murder, seemed like the latter was a key point.
And after what I wrote yesterday about her post-WWII books being more interesting bc she weaves in the war's aftermath into the characters' lives, I stand corrected. In The A.B.C. Murders, published in 1935, there is a character with pretty severe PTSD and mental/physical injuries from WWI. I was reflecting on how close the two wars were for Europe especially where a lot of the actual fighting took place. Only a little over twenty years. That's like something that ended in 1986 or so in America starting over again. 1986 doesn't feel that long ago.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
"Ben Affleck's Boston"
An article from Slate.com by Patrick Radden Keefe about Ben Affleck's portrayal of Boston in Gone Baby Gone. Had to stop reading the first page because I was laughing too much at work.
I stand corrected, Affleck is not from Boston but from Cambridge. I would have thought those are on the same but I am schooled that they're not. It's probably like saying San Francisco is the same city as Oakland. Right, Bostonians?
Eh, just slipped a Henry James reference in there!
I stand corrected, Affleck is not from Boston but from Cambridge. I would have thought those are on the same but I am schooled that they're not. It's probably like saying San Francisco is the same city as Oakland. Right, Bostonians?
Eh, just slipped a Henry James reference in there!
"I'm not trying to watch TV!"
Last night my roommate was watching TV while I was baking cupcakes, talked to someone on the phone about a position, and did random things. I wasn't trying to watch TV but it was on in the background. So I was half listening. My goal this week is to not intentionally sit down and watch TV, not avoid hearing any sounds from the box. As characters would say lines and the audience would laugh, I would be distracted in my task but turn to Ting and go, "What'd he say that was so funny?" It doesn't help that I think I have a hard time hearing people. Ting would repeat it and I would laugh a little. Sometimes TV lines are a lot funnier if you just repeat them. Esp as Ting does it in this calm voice, not trying to be funny.
So I'm brushing my teeth and she has the tivo'd Oprah show on. I really really don't like her show but sometimes they're interesting. Yesterday's was sad and affirming (wait, isn't that all her shows?) about this professor dying and a few months left to live, giving this lecture that's called My Last Lecture. Not just for him, Carnegie Mellon (? I'm too lazy to check) where he teaches has this series where professors pretend to give their last lecture. But it's real for him. It was really touching and he was hard-core "live life."
I'm all the way in the bathroom but I can kinda hear it. I miss a line and I shout, "Hey, rewind it, what'd he say?" Ting says, "You're not supposed to be watching TV!" "I'm not trying to, it's just happening! Rewind it please" "No, you're not supposed to be watching." "Ting, c'mon, what'd he say?" Back and forth! Finally she said the line I missed and I said, ah that's touching.
HA HA
So I'm brushing my teeth and she has the tivo'd Oprah show on. I really really don't like her show but sometimes they're interesting. Yesterday's was sad and affirming (wait, isn't that all her shows?) about this professor dying and a few months left to live, giving this lecture that's called My Last Lecture. Not just for him, Carnegie Mellon (? I'm too lazy to check) where he teaches has this series where professors pretend to give their last lecture. But it's real for him. It was really touching and he was hard-core "live life."
I'm all the way in the bathroom but I can kinda hear it. I miss a line and I shout, "Hey, rewind it, what'd he say?" Ting says, "You're not supposed to be watching TV!" "I'm not trying to, it's just happening! Rewind it please" "No, you're not supposed to be watching." "Ting, c'mon, what'd he say?" Back and forth! Finally she said the line I missed and I said, ah that's touching.
HA HA
The A.B.C. Murders
I've started a new novel by my fave mystery scribe Ms. A. Christie. I actually started it last week ago but I was slow to warm up to the plot. She wrote it in 1935 and I find myself liking her later 40's and 50's plots better. Maybe she matured as a writer or maybe I like her post-WWII thoughts woven casually into the characters' lives. 4:50 from Paddington featured a side character who was a English WWII bomber pilot that now ten years after the war, wasn't suited for everyday humdrum life and found himself a bit at a loss. I like how she incorporates not only the times but the consequences of the times into her characters' lives.
But ooh, this one is getting better. As the book jacket describes, "Alice Ascher, a shopkeeper in Adover, is bludgeoned to death in her shop. Next to die is Betty Bernard in Bexhill - strangled with her own belt. Then, Sir Carmichael Clarke's skull is crushed in Churston. Clearly a serial killer with an alphabetical bent is on the loose..."
Oooh, I have no idea who it could be. Ok, my one idea is that actually the killer really only wants the third guy Sir Clarke dead but kills the first two to set it up as looking like a serial murderer. We'll have to wait and see...
And really, hats off again to Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers for coming out with fresh colorful affordable hardbacks of her books. They're a delight to read and I do think half the fun of reading a novel is how good it looks. Sigh, yes, I do judge a book by its cover after all :)
But ooh, this one is getting better. As the book jacket describes, "Alice Ascher, a shopkeeper in Adover, is bludgeoned to death in her shop. Next to die is Betty Bernard in Bexhill - strangled with her own belt. Then, Sir Carmichael Clarke's skull is crushed in Churston. Clearly a serial killer with an alphabetical bent is on the loose..."
Oooh, I have no idea who it could be. Ok, my one idea is that actually the killer really only wants the third guy Sir Clarke dead but kills the first two to set it up as looking like a serial murderer. We'll have to wait and see...
And really, hats off again to Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers for coming out with fresh colorful affordable hardbacks of her books. They're a delight to read and I do think half the fun of reading a novel is how good it looks. Sigh, yes, I do judge a book by its cover after all :)
*Picture from Amazon.com
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
SoCal fires
I've been obsessed with SoCal fire news and updates these last two days. My parents' house is near the main Witch Fire in San Diego but most likely safe from harm. It's scary especially as there was the huge Cedar Fire four years ago and the news has been reporting that this fire is worse. Scripps Ranch, the suburb next to ours Mira Mesa, received mandatory evacuations early yesterday afternoon which scared me (I've been calling my parents 4-5 times a day to give them updates as they are not internet-savvy and were in Garden Grove OC) but it's hard to tell because Scripps is so large and borders a canyon which is where fires love to live. Lots of houses in Scripps burned down in the Cedar Fire. So Scripps being evaucated is scary but also not completely telling for Mira Mesa.
The majority of SD is not really in danger and is only dealing with the ash and a few freeways being closed down temporarily. Friends and coworkers are still working and doing birthday parties. But it's odd bc all schools, colleges, and libraries are closed and most parks are also. Animals are being moved from the Wild Animal Park in north SD. My high school is a key evac center which is eery to me but also makes people on forums think Mira Mesa is safe. In a way the city has shut down yet it's still going. The evac numbers on the news are scary but I think they're just erring on the side of caution and the 500,000 people will mostly have houses to go home to. They learned from the Cedar Fire that ppl take time to leave their houses.
One frustrating thing is the firefighters' lack of manpower and resources. The news has been saying that some manpower has been wasted on making people leave in mandatory evac situations. People, c'mon. If your area has a mandatory (not voluntary) evac notice, please leave. It's for your benefit. Perhaps there is a high chance nothing will happen to your house but do you want to risk it? The winds could change.
Praying for the winds to die down and for people's safety...
For more news on SD see their newspaper's website.
The majority of SD is not really in danger and is only dealing with the ash and a few freeways being closed down temporarily. Friends and coworkers are still working and doing birthday parties. But it's odd bc all schools, colleges, and libraries are closed and most parks are also. Animals are being moved from the Wild Animal Park in north SD. My high school is a key evac center which is eery to me but also makes people on forums think Mira Mesa is safe. In a way the city has shut down yet it's still going. The evac numbers on the news are scary but I think they're just erring on the side of caution and the 500,000 people will mostly have houses to go home to. They learned from the Cedar Fire that ppl take time to leave their houses.
One frustrating thing is the firefighters' lack of manpower and resources. The news has been saying that some manpower has been wasted on making people leave in mandatory evac situations. People, c'mon. If your area has a mandatory (not voluntary) evac notice, please leave. It's for your benefit. Perhaps there is a high chance nothing will happen to your house but do you want to risk it? The winds could change.
Praying for the winds to die down and for people's safety...
For more news on SD see their newspaper's website.
Gone Baby Gone
I watched Gone Baby Gone with my roommate and her friend on Sunday night. I don't usually watch so many movies but they've just come up.
I really liked this too. Not a blockbuster - it's been said in reviews that it's like Mystic River which I kinda agree especially as they're by the same author Dennis Lehane. Casey Affleck is really good in it as are most of the actors (including Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris) though I thought his work/life partner Michele Monaghan was ehh and was "acting" and reminded me it was movie every time she said a line. Amy Ryan, from my fave TV show "The Wire," does an amazing job playing a distressed mother who's 3 yr old daughter's been kidnapped. I won't say anything more but the movie makes you think. In bed that night, I was still thinking about the themes. Revealing them would be saying too much but it's provoking.
It's set in Boston and as it's Ben Affleck's first directing project, who grew up in Boston, it feels very "this city." I feel drawn to projects that are a close-up glimpse of one life or one moment or one city or one family. Like Once Were Warriors - an awesome intense New Zealand movie about an inner-city struggling family (go Netflix it right now!). I think the best stories and movies and poems are that focused. And in telling that one everyday story, almost nonchalantly, a bigger story is told. About life and love and heroism and wanting more. Like The Fountain actually. I was thinking last night as I was watching it that all the famous love stories in time were about one person loving one other person and doing incredible/sacrifical/romantic things to show that love/win the person/defeat social pressure. In the moment, I bet it doesn't feel like that one story, so personal and individual, will come to be known by generations and repeated and honored, and will represent the bigger issues of mankind. It probably just feels like, "I love you and will do anything to be with you."
I really liked this too. Not a blockbuster - it's been said in reviews that it's like Mystic River which I kinda agree especially as they're by the same author Dennis Lehane. Casey Affleck is really good in it as are most of the actors (including Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris) though I thought his work/life partner Michele Monaghan was ehh and was "acting" and reminded me it was movie every time she said a line. Amy Ryan, from my fave TV show "The Wire," does an amazing job playing a distressed mother who's 3 yr old daughter's been kidnapped. I won't say anything more but the movie makes you think. In bed that night, I was still thinking about the themes. Revealing them would be saying too much but it's provoking.
It's set in Boston and as it's Ben Affleck's first directing project, who grew up in Boston, it feels very "this city." I feel drawn to projects that are a close-up glimpse of one life or one moment or one city or one family. Like Once Were Warriors - an awesome intense New Zealand movie about an inner-city struggling family (go Netflix it right now!). I think the best stories and movies and poems are that focused. And in telling that one everyday story, almost nonchalantly, a bigger story is told. About life and love and heroism and wanting more. Like The Fountain actually. I was thinking last night as I was watching it that all the famous love stories in time were about one person loving one other person and doing incredible/sacrifical/romantic things to show that love/win the person/defeat social pressure. In the moment, I bet it doesn't feel like that one story, so personal and individual, will come to be known by generations and repeated and honored, and will represent the bigger issues of mankind. It probably just feels like, "I love you and will do anything to be with you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
