let's talk strawberries...

strawberry fest goodness for everyone!!! woohoo!!!

although this happened ages ago i thought that i would share something relevant to life in new orleans (well, louisiana, anyway). a few saturdays ago gavin, stephanie, nick, and little ol' me went to the strawberry festival in ponchatoula, louisiana. although it was hot as hell, a good time was had by all. we had all of the alcoholic strawberry concoctions one can imagine (and then some), not to mention some fried food, food on a stick, and food that we just stared at wondering if people really ate that crap. we played some carnival games, wandered around, i got an airbrush tattoo of a fleur de lis (cus really i just want to be like meeg- :P ), and I rode roller coasters (because the three other adult i was with were just too scared to ride them- note in the photo that the kid i'm sitting next to can't be older than 7 and then think of the 3 30 year olds standing on the ground watching!). it was fab fab fun and here are some pics for your enjoyment!

the dilletante's guide to sounding well read

as many of you may know from reading meeg's 'too much information', he and i have been having this ongoing conversation about books that everyone claims to have read, but no one has actually read them. these are the books that i feel come up at some dinner party or something and everyone throws their opinion in about them. suddenly, you find yourself looking at these people and making bets with yourself about how few of them have ever even seen the book, much less read it. so, i've come up with a list of books that i think everyone claims to have read, but probably has not, and i am here to provide a brief cliff-note like discussion of them so that next time you find yourself at that dinner party people will be thinking that you are one of the few who has ACTUALLY read the book.

1. The Stranger by Albert Camus- now, the reason i've picked this one is because a) it's one of my personal faves and b) i think that it's a good entre into any discussion being had about existentialism. the story is about a man named meursault (which no one will remember- i've read the book a dozen times and i just had to look up his name). the book primarily deals with the theme of morality and guilt. through this weird and random series of events (having to do with a jilted lover, a neighbor, a knife fight, and the glare of the sun on the beach) meursault ends up shooting an arab man (this would be a good time to mention the cure song, 'killing an arab'. this way you not only sound well read at your dinner party, but cool as well). much of the novel takes place during meursault's trial and while he sits in his cell awaiting execution for his crime. to really discuss the novel in a way that makes it seem as if you've read it when you haven't, you must discuss the emphasis placed on meursault's actions at his mother's funeral at the beginning of the book. this is not only discussed at length at the start of the novel, but it is a primary focus of the trial (the prosecution feeling that his lack of emotion at his own mother's funeral showing his absolute lack of compassion and his true nature).

when discussing the meaning of The Stranger, rather than the text, it's key to discuss the fact that it is a book about the absurd. for Camus (and most of his characters) there is no truth other than the truth that they experience themselves (only the visceral is true- this is why the only thing that is really of consequence in the murder is the fact that it was ultimately caused by the sunlight shining in his eyes). to truly discuss Camus (when talking about The Stranger or pretty much any of his other works) you really must discuss his notions of morality. yes, he was a believer in the absurd, and most of his works revolved around this idea- but, more importantly, he believed in morality in the absense of divinity. this is what most people seem to miss out on when talking about Camus. there are those who say that he was agnostic, others say he was an athiest. he spent little time actually discussing this. we do know that he didn't subscribe to any particular religious beliefs. regardless of this, he believed that we are all responsible for our actions not because God has told us what to do or not to do, but because we are the ones who control our destiny and are responsible for our actions.

now, you can take this in any direction that you like. you're at your dinner party and you've shown that you know the basic plot line, the underlying philosophical themes and now you can start a discussion about morality (which is what Albert would have wanted). those around you will now not only think you've read The Stranger, but will think that you have a handle of Camus' particular brand of existentialist thought.

2. The Bell Jar by Syliva Plath- ahh, every teenage angsty girl's bedside bible. for some reason i feel like most men haven't read this book (and even half of the women who said that they read it as kids really didn't read the whole thing). our main character is ester greenwood, who is from suburban boston. at the beginning of the novel she goes to new york to work for a magazine (if i remember correctly it's nothing but an internship- whatever the case, it's a temporary assignement). i also forget what magazine it is- it might not even be mentioned, come to think of it, but the implication is that it's a prominent one, something like vogue or bazzar. she is totally entreanced by new york, by the people she meets (especially these two young womawn, on opposite sides of the spectrum- one whose hedonism and "modern" ideas about what is acceptable really appeal to ester, and another whose piety and restraint ester identifies with). it is also in new york that she acquires her benefactor (benefactress?), philomena, who is a successful writer.

the real meat of the story comes when ester goes home after her time in new york. new york was a lot for her to cope with, and it has left her pretty drained. she applies for a scholarship to do a writing course, but is rejected. her whole idea of self has revolved around her academic career (and here begin the real and undeniable parallels to plath's own life). now that she finds herself facing that which she dreads most (living the suburban life as wife and mother- the standard issue role for women of the day) she starts to become very depressed. her mother sends her off to see a psychiatrist, who gives her electoshock therapy (never a good sign). ester hates this analyst and refuses to go back. her mother assumes that this is because she's now ok, but in fact, ester's mental state is deteriorating. she tries a number of times to kill herself, and finally (in the most dramatic parallel to plath's own life) leaves a note that says she's going out for a bit, climbs under the house with a bottle of pills that had been given to her for her insomnia and takes them all. it is quite a while before she is found, but she is still alive. she is sent to another 'institution' and this time meets a therapist whom she likes. she is again treated with electroshock therapy (which is administered correctly this time) and says in the narrative that she feels that this has lifted 'the bell jar' of her depression that she had been trapped under. it's a good time to note here that this stay in the institution is paid for by her aforementioned benefactress. the novel ends with what is assumed to be ester's final interview at the hospital, the one that will determine if she is ready to leave. the interview is never revealled, and the novel ends with ester entering the room to speak with her doctor about her being discharged.

i really do think that, as the novel itself is really not that complex a narrative, the most important thing for any dilletante discussing this book at some dinner party is the fact that so much of it is a direct parallel to sylvia plath's life. sylvia herself did crawl underneath her parent's house and take a bunch of sleeping pills. she was found something like four days later, and was on the verge of death. ester's own identity being wrapped up in her academic pursuits also parallels plath's life, as plath was scholar who studied in england (where she would meet her husband, ted hughes). famously, plath did take her own life, having published only 'the bell jar' and the collection of poems, 'the colossus' in her lifetime. she did leave behind another collection of poems, 'ariel' (arguably her greatest work) which was edited and published by her estranged husband, the poet ted hughes.

3. The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas- this is one of those books that everyone claims to have read as there are so many film versions. problem with this is that there is only one version that is even remotely faithful to the actual novel. that version is the 1,000 hour gerard depardieu (sp?) version. it is one of my favorites, but the plot is infinitley complex. the story begins with our hero, edmond dantes, who is a sailor on board a merchant ship. he is engaged to the love of his life, mercedes. somehow this gentle soul makes many enemies (most of them are envious of his postion, some hate him because they think that he has knowledge that would incriminate them). the captain of his ship has a missive that he gives to dantes directly before his death that involves rescuing napoleon from elba and restoring him to power. his chief rival, mondego (who is jealous of dantes' relationship with the captain and who is also in love with mercedes), finds out what is in the letter (dantes is unaware of what it says), and reports him to the very influential villefort. problem is, the letter was written by villefort's estranged father. a number of other people are dragged into the conspiracy and dantes is sent away to the prison, chateau d'if (from which no one has ever escaped). dantes has no idea why he is being sent there and his close friends and family (mercedes, his father, and his benefactor) also have no idea why he's really been sent there. dantes has done nothing wrong and he is imprisoned to save or advance the reputations of a number of his 'enemies'.

while in prison (he remains there for many years) he meets a man named the abbe faria. they begin a close friendship while they try to dig their way out of the prison. the abbe is a very learned man and teaches dantes many things (including the art of warfare, how to read, many languages, and more besides). after many years of digging, they realize that they have dug the tunnel to an inside wall and all hope of escape is lost. before his death the abbe tells dantes of this vast treasure on the island of monte cristo. he makes dantes memorize the map and they come up with a plan that will allow the young(ish) man to escape. on the night that the abbe dies, dantes enters his cell through the tunnell they have dug out and places the abbe's body in dantes' own cell. dantes then returns and climbs into the abbe's body bag. assuming that the body is that of the abbe, the guards throw it out into the ocean. dantes cuts himself loose with a knife that he had fashioned and floats along until he is rescued by a group of pirates. he spends time working on the boat in return for passage to the island of monte cristo. when he arrives there he finds the treasure that the abbe told him about. he gathers some money and prepares his revenge.

his travelling companions take him back to marsailles where he rents a large boat and returns to monte cristo. he spends 9 years in marsailles, now calling himself 'the count of monte cristo', and plots his revenge agaist those who had him imprisoned. his ordeal in prison has made him unrecognizable and he easily gets away with pretending to be someone else.

he spends years methodically rewarding those who were faithful to him and punishing those who were not (he takes away that which those who betrayed him hold most dear. he takes away mondego's money and mercedes- who ended up marrying him. he exposes villefort's bonapartist roots, etc).

one of the most important things to discuss when talking about the count of monte cristo is the anger and resentment that builds while he is in prison and the fact that it takes him decades to come to the realization that revenge didn't really make him any happier. in the end he lets mercedes and her son go without any sort of retribution and dantes runs away with his slave girl who he has fallen in love with.

a good way to tell if someone hasn't read the book and only seen the movie is to ask a) if mondego's son is actually the son of dantes and b) if mercedes and dantes end up together. if they say yes to either of these questions they HAVE NOT read the book, they have only seen the movie. hollywood decided that it was a happier ending if all ended well with dantes and mercedes. alas, dumas felt differently and all of the surviving parties (and those who aren't in prison) go their separate ways. it's not a hollywood happy ending, but it is a happy ending nonetheless.

it's quite a long book, and it's very complex in terms of plot and the sheer number of characters, but it's certainly worth a read.

4. Lolita by Vladamir Nabokov- ok, everyone's seen the film (i hope). i must say that it's a pretty good representation of the novel (as Nabokov was contstanly on set and advised Kubrick throughout filming). This is one of my favorite novels and i must recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it. the main thing that i want to point out about this book/film is that the film doesn't do humbert humbert justice. yes, humbert is a pedophile who is in love with a 12 year old girl, but what the film doesn't properly convey is that humbert is actually a sympathetic character (in as much as pedophiles can be). lolita is not the innocent child that the film portrays her to be (she does show her true colors towards the end of the film, but it's clear throughout the book that she's a little vixen and he falls prey to her sexual advances). it's obvious throughout the book that she knows what she's doing. she seduces humbert in no uncertain terms. he tries to resist for quite a long time until finally giving into his natural (albeit deviant) tendencies). even when humbert essentially kidnaps lolita and takes her on the long and winding road trip lolita is constantly sleeping with another older gentleman, quilty. she eventually escapes humbert to go and live with quilty. in a jealous rage humbert kills quilty and is sent to jail for it.

when discussing the book, the most interesting points are those that i have mentioned- humbert as a sympathetic character. a deviant who does what he can to avoid his natural tendencies, but ultimately is too weak to resist them. another good talking point is the 'innocent' lolita. did she know what she was doing? i, for one, say that she knew what she was doing from the start. in a discussion setting this could easily lead to a debate about pedophilia and how it manifests itself. how much temptation can a pedophile take? is it his fault that he is a pedophile? the questions are endless.

beyond all of these questions and debates, it is undeniable that this book has the most amazing opening of any book that i have ever read. it is sheer genius. the book is worth reading for the opening alone...

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palette to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.
Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."

5. Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler- i fucking hate this book, but i felt like i should probably discuss it. the novel is set during the stalinist purges and moscow show trials. it's the story of one of the men who helped create the regeim who is then persecuted for no reason in particular (in a very stalinist fashion). it actually does a really good job of conveying the fear and uncertainty of the era. as it was published while the whole stalin being a bastard thing was still going on koestler had to escape to england to avoid persecution.

if you know anything about stalinist russia, you pretty much know the story. man who is high up in government, stalin (who isn't named) becomes paranoid that he's up to something, he's tried, imprissoned, and undergoes horrible torture, etc. it really is a good portrait of the horrors that took place while stalin was in power.

now, for the reasons that i hate this book. firstly, there are a couple of female characters, but they are reduced to personalityless pieces of meat. there is one scene in particular during which the protagonist doesn't even mention the woman's name or face, he is simply fixed on her legs and on her as a sex object. in fact, all of the women in the novel are nothing but sex objects. they are nameless, faceless, and meaningless other than their value as objects of sexual attraction. the other reason why i hate this book (and the bastard who wrote it) stems from the time he spent in exile in england. he was quite famous in england, as his book is considered one of the greatest books of all time. years after his death a young man decided to write a biography on koestler. it was known that koestler was friends with a former candidate for prime minister, a one mr. foot. at one point in his interview with mr. foot and his wife the interviewer was left alone with mrs. foot. she took the opportunity to inform the interviewer that arthur koestler had raped her years before. naturally, the interviewer was shocked and asked if he could publish this information. mrs. foot gave him permission to do so. as soon as this information became public, women came out of the woodwork claiming that koestler had raped them, too. these were all respectable, society women who would have no reason to lie about this, and it was well documented that koestler spent time with all of these women. in the end it came out that he had raped dozens of women in the time that he was in england. i only learned of this fact after i had read the novel. when i went back and read it again it became clear that these women had to be telling the truth. in all of koestler's work women are nothing but sex objects. apparently, he not only wrote about this fact, but he lived his life as if it were true.

in any discussion of this novel one must, of course, discuss the stalinist purges and how awful they were, but must also discuss the horrors of koestler's personal life. discussion of this novel can and will inevitably lead to many questions. here are a few to get you started...

can a novel truly represent reality if only one sex is represented?

should his treatment of women in 'darkness at noon' affect the general opinion of the book?

can an artist's work and the artist's life be separated? should we judge the art alone or should we take his personal life into consideration when judging the work of art?

so so so so... there are my 5 books and discussion topics. love them or hate them, this should give you plenty to talk about at your next dinner party (and be pretty convincing if you want people to not only think you've read the books, but that you've given them lots of thought as well).

enjoy!!

fine! i was perfectly happy to talk about the past, but now you've gone and made me do it!! let's fing talk election!!

ok, i know i've done 2 political blogs to date. one about how much i like hillary (you have to give me that that was months and months ago- before her air of desperation started smelling less like campaign fervor and more like bad b.o.), and one about the fact that i thought that they both needed to stop talking less crap about each other and start talking more about the important issues that they weren't talking about (i STILL haven't heard anything substantive from either of them about the environment- what the fuck is up with that? is this not an important issue? where is al? why has he not called them out on this?!?). but there is so much more to say here... oh, so much more.

as opposed to spending even MORE time bitching about how much both of these wankers are really starting to piss me off (and about how glad i am that i'm leaving this bloody country just a few months after the election) i am going to go through the IMPORTANT things that people seem to be missing out on.

first, for the sake of this discussion we are going to say that both of our candidates are telletubbies. they are genderless, race-less, weirdo blobs who don't really even talk (and neither of them are the gay one, that would be a whole different complication that i don't want to get into). so, you can't vote for one person because he or she is a better orator, or because he is black, or she has a vagina. these things are now TOTALLY irrelevant!! what matters now is ONLY (and i mean ONLY) what they stand for. what are their platforms? what differentiates them from one another (other than skin color and genitalia)?

so, we're going for platforms (and i know that most of you will be able to identify the candidate by certain aspects of their platforms, but i'm going to keep them anonymous. so, just read what they say they'll do and THEN decide. really, try to keep the actual person OUT OF YOUR MIND).

ok- we have two democratic candidates, dipsy and lala (i'm pretty sure neither of them is the gay one, but don't quote me on that).

Dipsy

LaLa

here's a bit of a run down--

HEALTH CARE

Dipsy states on its web site, and in numerous debates, that it plans to create a national health care program. What sets its program apart from others proposed is that the plan would be for everyone, not just a select few. It would then go a step further to create a National Health insurance Board for those who would like to buy their own private insurance. By doing so, the prices of the health care plans would be better regulated

Lala favors a universal health care package which it calls the American Health Choices Plan. It would give tax credits to families to help cover costs and would not attach any preexisting medical conditions. Some have stated that Lala's plan is a more comprehensive plan, but it simply provides tax credits rather than providing a national health care program.

IRAQ (and how much do i hate that this is something i even have to talk about? I TOLD YOU PEOPLE IN 02 THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A HUGE MISTAKE AND THAT WE SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED...DID YOU LISTEN TO ME? NO!! AND NOW LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE!! FUCKERS!!)

Dipsy states that its time frame is 16 months. However, it would keep some troops in Iraq to protect the United State employees already in position in the country in the Embassy and other diplomatic positions. It then would move a step further to create a Middle East Compact in order to create an international group that would address issues in Iraq, including violations of humanitarian issues.

Lala would bring back our troops in a faster format than Dipsy would. Its plan takes place in three phases. The first phase would begin to bring the troops back to the states within 60 days of it taking office. The second phase would look at stabilizing the area. The last phase of its plan would create diplomatic goals that would help Iraq to gain independence once the military has exited the arena. Its plan does not mention if it would retain any peace keeping forces, however it has referred to the need for peace keeping forces in recent debates.

ECONOMY (god help us, is anyone going to be able to get us out of THIS mess? i swear, if the dollar gets any weaker i'll end up moving to scotland and a thousand saved dollars won't buy my a bloody can of coke).

Dipsy will concentrate on initiatives that will make American workers more competitive in the work place market of the 21st century. Immediately, it would provide an additional tax break for Americans. The tax break is called the " Making Work Pay Tax Credit." Individuals would receive an additional $500 in their pockets and a family would receive $1000. It is felt that this extra cash in the hands of Americans would help to stimulate the economy as Americans would have a bit of extra cash to use for bills and to spend on extras.

Lala states that it has a plan to restore America's middle class. This is its main agenda. It states that it will put in place a middle class tax cut by increasing the child tax credit and offering an extra tax cut for those in the middle income range. It also states that part of the problem is a lack of competitive jobs for the new century. It plans on doing this by investing in some of the new sources of energy which will create more jobs. It also is looking at creative partnerships to create new jobs, and is offering a tax break to companies that will keep jobs in America rather than shipping them overseas for cheaper labor.

EDUCATION

Dipsy's first step would be to revise the No Child Left Behind policy. It states that the policy is a step in the correct direction . However there often is not funding to support the plan. It also feels that children should not be spending most of their years, learning to fill in bubbles on a test. The way the policies read, the schools with the highest standardized test scores are the schools that get the most money. So districts, principals and teachers are all forced to focus mainly on helping children to bring their scores up on these tests. Dipsy questions if this technique is true education. Also, Dipsy says that more and more Americans are unable to go to college because of the cost of higher education. It proposes adding a 44,000 tax credit called the American Opportunity Tax Credit that will offset the first $4,000 that a parent or student spend on higher education. It also would look into a similar plan that California has where city or Junior colleges are often free to the cities residents. Its plan would provide for all community colleges to allow free tuition to most of it's students.

Lala has proposed several items to enhance education both at the secondary level and at the higher education level. With our youngest children, it proposes expanding Head Start by putting more money into the program. It is a strong believer in reading literacy and states that the earlier the better. It would end No Child Left Behind which is a policy with ideas but no funding. It would put a plan in action to reach the poor and at risk youth by expanding after school enrichment programs. At the higher education level, Lala would provide a $3,500 tax credit to help parents trying to fund a college education for their children. It also would increase the Pell Grant maximum and would increase the guidelines for qualifying so more families could benefit. It also states it would invest more money into our Junior colleges.

NOW- who's ideas do you like more? Dipsy's or Lala's? This has nothing to do with who has more experience, or who speaks better in public, or who looks better, or what race or sex anyone is. It comes down to WHAT THEY WOULD DO TO FIX THIS SHIT HOLE OF A COUNTRY THAT W HAS LEFT US WITH.

i hope that you all comment and explain the policies you like and why. i hope that this actually gets the point across that the vast majority of this country and the vast majority of democrats are looking at this thing ALL WRONG. it's not about anything but what these people will do for our country if elected. it should be about what they believe in, how they're going to fix this mess, and if their plans to fix these messes are viable.

Of course, there are some issues that have been left out. Both are Pro-Choice. Both believe in a sustained system of gun control. Both think that we have major work to do to repair our reputation on the global stage.

As for their stands on the environment, both have been very vague- laying out some ideas, and then proposing others that contradict those ideas. Your guess is as good as mine on that one. There are so many other issues that should be being discussed but aren't. These two are too busy attacking one another, and the press is too busy asking the same stupid fucking questions over and over and over again. If we all got our heads on straight and said, "wait a second, what do you think about the environment? what are you going to do about North Korea? what about Iran? how are you going to mend our relationship with Russia? what about our relationship with EU member countries? can you stop the dollar from it's CRAZY FREE FALL?!?" then maybe we would be able to get somewhere. we need to stop judging our candidates on surface issues and personality contests (which is, after all, why al and john both lost to W- because assholes thought that W was more of a 'normal guy'. i don't want my president to be normal. i want him or her to be smart. very smart. smarter than me, smarter than you. i don't care if it's someone i would want to have a drink with, i want someone who KNOWS THINGS- i'm looking at you, here, W!).

so, let's focus! what are the issues and what do you think of where the candidates stand on them? we're all moderately intelligent, let's fucking use those brains and pick a candidate who is good for this country because of their ideas, not because of their skin or reproductive systems.

now where were we? oh yeah... henry!!

Henry I ascended the throne when his brother, William II was struck down by an arrow (again, will these kings never learn? this WILL come up again- idiots!). He ascended in 1100. He was the youngest and certainly the most able of William I's sons. Henry was no fool, and shortly after his accession he married the niece of of the last surviving mail of the House of Wessex. He did this because he recognized the importance of English support against his elder brother and even his own barons.

In 1106, Henry's army, composed largely of Saxons, defeated an uprising by his elder brother. Henry gained further popularity when he issued the Charter of Liberties, in which he promised to abolish the evil practices of his brother, William II.

Once his kingdom was secured, Henry reorganized the judicial system and the methods of raising taxes. He created a royal court-of-all-work, the Curia Regis (King's Court), which acted as an advisory body and as a court of law. It also supervised taxation. Members of this court were sent out to bring even the remote districts into contact with royal taxation, as well as to make the people familiar with royal justice.

in 1120 Henry's two legitimate sons were drowned in the tragedy of the 'White Ship'. He nominated as his successor his daughter Matilda (or Maude, as some historians call her- a move which was to prove controversial to say the least), who had married Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (Geoffry Plantagenet).

When Henry died in 1135, the Council, considering a woman unfit to rule (bastards), offered the throne to Stephen of Blois, nephew of Henry and grandson of William I.

This caused a major kerfuffle and led to a civil war that would last the length of the reign of King Stephen.

next time... the mess of matilda vs stephen I.

question-- how many of you knew that there was a king stephen? the first time i heard that i thought someone was playing a joke on me.

now a break from our regularly scheduled programming...

so, i know that meeg has blogged a few times (or at least once) about anthony bourdain and his show, 'no reservations'. i must admit that i used to think that the guy was a flat-out jackass, but somehow i've done a 180 and now i kind of love him. he shoots from the hip and you really don't get any bullshit from him (plus, you have to respect a guy who's willing to eat some really really disgusting things, get smashed on national television, and generally make a total fool of himself).

as some of you may know, bourdain recently made a visit down to our little town and did a new orleans episode. generally, i liked it.

i'm really pissed off that he talked to emeril though.

anyway, i think he did a good job of showing the fact that we're not back up to snuff yet, but i think that he focused too much on that. he didn't come uptown, or go to midcity, or the garden district. he didn't focus on any of the areas that are back in full swing, and doing really really well. that's ok though, i understand that people want to show new orleans as still suffering.

all in all, it was a good show. what i really wanted to talk about though is chris rose and what he said at the end of the show. i think that everyone who's lived in new orleans (or spent a good amount of time here) will agree with most of what he says. i don't love chris rose, but i don't hate him either. sometimes i think he's holier than thou, sometimes i think that he hits the nail right on the head.

in this case, i think that he really did grasp how we were all feeling at the time and how some of us still feel. here's his letter to america that he wrote right after the storm (and recited on the show)...

Dear America,
I suppose we should introduce ourselves: We're South Louisiana.
We have arrived on your doorstep on short notice and we apologize for that, but we never were much for waiting around for invitations. We're not much on formalities like that.
And we might be staying around your town for a while, enrolling in your schools and looking for jobs, so we wanted to tell you a few things about us. We know you didn't ask for this and neither did we, so we're just going to have to make the best of it.
First of all, we thank you. For your money, your water, your food, your prayers, your boats and buses and the men and women of your National Guards, fire departments, hospitals and everyone else who has come to our rescue.
We're a fiercely proud and independent people, and we don't cotton much to outside interference, but we're not ashamed to accept help when we need it. And right now, we need it.
Just don't get carried away. For instance, once we get around to fishing again, don't try to tell us what kind of lures work best in your waters.
We're not going to listen. We're stubborn that way.
You probably already know that we talk funny and listen to strange music and eat things you'd probably hire an exterminator to get out of your yard.
We dance even if there's no radio. We drink at funerals. We talk too much and laugh too loud and live too large and, frankly, we're suspicious of others who don't.
But we'll try not to judge you while we're in your town.
Everybody loves their home, we know that. But we love South Louisiana with a ferocity that borders on the pathological. Sometimes we bury our dead in LSU sweatshirts.
Often we don't make sense. You may wonder why, for instance - if we could only carry one small bag of belongings with us on our journey to your state - why in God's name did we bring a pair of shrimp boots?
We can't really explain that. It is what it is.
You've probably heard that many of us stayed behind. As bad as it is, many of us cannot fathom a life outside of our border, out in that place we call Elsewhere.
The only way you could understand that is if you have been there, and so many of you have. So you realize that when you strip away all the craziness and bars and parades and music and architecture and all that hooey, really, the best thing about where we come from is us.
We are what made this place a national treasure. We're good people. And don't be afraid to ask us how to pronounce our names. It happens all the time.
When you meet us now and you look into our eyes, you will see the saddest story ever told. Our hearts are broken into a thousand pieces.
But don't pity us. We're gonna make it. We're resilient. After all, we've been rooting for the Saints for 35 years. That's got to count for something.
OK, maybe something else you should know is that we make jokes at inappropriate times.
But what the hell.
And one more thing: In our part of the country, we're used to having visitors. It's our way of life.
So when all this is over and we move back home, we will repay to you the hospitality and generosity of spirit you offer to us in this season of our despair.
That is our promise. That is our faith.

that's totally rufus!!

(and if you got that reference you're as lame as i am).

so, as promised, we're continuing on with our saga of the kings and queens of england. last time we had a bit of a visit with the one the started the whole affair (well, sort of), william the conqueror. now we're moving on to his son, the next king of england...

William II ('Rufus')
so, we know that William I was both the king of england and duke of normandy. this caused problems for him during his reign, as he was both king of his own sovereign nation and had to swear fealty to the king of another sovereign nation (that being france- where normandy is- for all of you who don't own maps). so, upon his death he decided to cleverly get around this issue and not burden his kids with the same problems. he left normandy to his eldest son, robert, and he left england to his third son, william (who was by far and away his favorite child).

robert was none too pleased about this arrangement, and 'rufus' (so called because of his flaming red hair), was stern and avaricious. because of this many of the norman barons took robert's side and the risings and private wars plagued william's reign. in order to safeguard himself against his elder brother and those pesky disaffected nobles, william had to rely on his english subjects. this was of particular importance in 1088 when he had to put down a rebellion led by robert.

william eventually patched things up with robert (mostly because robert went off on a crusade in 1095). at this time, william also secured the frontiers with wales and scotland, building Carlisle Castle and a chain of forts along the welsh border.

although william was clearly tyrannical, cruel, and blasphemous, his character suffered at the hands of the monastic chronicles because of the way in which he plundered the church (will those kings ever learn to just leave the damn church alone? oh, how much trouble is this crap going to cause for williams great-grandkids?!). as he has squandered his father's treasure, he made money by keeping sees vacant and diverting the monies to his own coffers. he also drove the archbishop of canterbury into exile.

in the end though, he was a strong and (mostly) capable ruler, especially given that he never received any co-operation from the most powerful men in the country (the nobles). he was killed (most believe murdered) by a stray arrow (what is it with arrows and these kings? you'd think they'd watch themselves more carefully) while hunting in the New Forest in 1100.

next time, we will visit with the next in line (another of the conqueror's sons), henry I (not the meddlesome priest one).

i spy with my little eye something that begins with a...

time for another history lesson, boys and girls (british history, of course). for those of you who don't know, the picture above is part of the bayeaux tapestry, a huge tapestry that depicts the conquest of england by william of normandy (william the bastard, later to be known as william I of england). this scene depicts the fatal blow to the then king of england, harold godwinson, as he was struck in the eye with an arrow.

so, here is how the story goes...
there was this kind named edward (they called him edward the confessor). he was well loved by his people, but a weak king. he had no sons and seems to have promised his throne to just about everyone around him (including both harold and tostig godwinson, who were brothers and the son of edward's most beloved advisor godwin, william of normandy- then known as william the bastard because, well, he was illegitamate, and a bunch of scandinavian guys that we won't get into here). upon his death in 1066, his throne passed to harold godwinson (making his brother tostig none too happy). another person who was a bit miffed at this was william the bastard. william was the second cousin of edward the confessor. it's said that edward promised william the throne in 1051. when harold took the throne in 1066 upon edward's death, william got straight to work, preparing to invade england and take what he felt was rightfully his.

at this point, william wasn't the only one gearing up to invade. harold's brother, tostig, aided by harold hardrada, king of norway, landed in northern england in late summer of 1066. harold made a mad dash (on foot, mind you, and with an ass-load of soldiers marching all the way from london) up to the north to do battle with the king of norway and his very own brother. harold godwinson defeated the invaders at the battle of stamford bridge on the 25th of september, 1066. it couldn't have helped harold's state of mind that he killed his own brother in this battle.

on the 29th of september, 1066 william the bastard landed at pevensey, in the south of england. harold got wind of this and had to march his beleagured army all the way back down to the south of england (and i complain about walking to the store!!).
on the 14th of october, 1066 william and harold met on a field near hastings, and fought a day long battle. at the end of the day, harold godwinson was dead and william the bastard had suddenly become william I of england. it took william 6 more years to quell the unrest and revolts throughout england and to truly complete his conquest.

once the conquest was fully completed, william turned to governing the country. the feudal tenure of land was introduced. in 1085, the Doomsday survey was begun, so that taxes could be properly collected. it was an amazing innovation in terms of surveying the population and a landmark of sorts in medieval census taking.

the english church was reorganized, and separate courts were established to deal with offenses committed under canon law (when we discuss the plantagenet kings we'll talk about how big a pain in their asses this would turn out to be).

he was considered ruthless and cruel (only one person was executed under his reign, but many were mutilated- mostly for breaches of the 'game law' that he put into place. he created the 'new forest' as a game park, and only he was allowed to hunt in it). nonetheless, he was a great administrator, and gave england the first foundations of a stable and effective government.

he was injured at the siege of mantes while fighting against his feudal overlord, the king of france. he died in 1087.

i think that the anglo-saxon chronicle pretty much sums up his reign well,

"he was mild to the good men that loved God, and beyond all measure severe to the men that gainsaid his will...it is not to be forgotten that good peace he made in this land so that man might go over his kingdom with his bosom full of gold...and no man durst slay another."

next time, his son and next in line- william rufus (william II).

happy valentine's day

i'll excuse the fact that this little montage has scenes from that awful drew barrymore film, 'fever pitch' and even 'the lake house', cus it is kind of cute, and it IS valentine's day (god, you should have seen some of the other montage videos on youtube-- soo much worse than this one!!!

hope you all have a great day.
much love to you all

You're tearing me apart!!

you! you say one thing, and he says another, and then everybody changes back again!

ok- why does it have to be me who always points these things out?!? hillary, barack- sit down. shut up. hillary- i said zip it. i know, barack. i know, i don't care. shut up, both of you!! don't you see what you're doing? this was supposed to be OUR time! we had it in one! there was no way that ANY of them could have beat us (even mccain) after this mess that W's made. and what are you two doing with this golden opportunity? ripping each other apart! you're not even going after THEM! you're going after each other. i know, i know, it's the primary. you have to battle it out to see who wins. and, i can see how badly you both want this. that's not the point though! you're on the same fucking side! stop bashing each other like this! one of you is going to get it in the end, and then the other is going to have to suddenly change tack and get behind the candidate that's chosen.
if you lose hillary, how are you suddenly going to say that you support barack after you've been telling us how unelectable he is?
barack, how are you going to get behind hillary if she takes it when you've spent all of these months telling us that she's a part of this machine/good ol' boy network that we have to get out of?
well, you just can't!! both of you! think about the future! you're going to make yourselves (and the party) look so disingenuous! it's a disgrace! at least do a little less attacking of one another! discuss the issues, fair enough (speaking of which- why aren't you talking about the environment? barack- if you open your mouth to talk about health care, i'm going to slap you! why aren't either of you talking about more of the important things that we NEED you to be talking about? hillary, grow a pair, babe. everyone thinks you're this ballsy bitch, but i see through you. you're so scared to lose this that you're not really stepping up. why doesn't anyone KNOW that you're ENTIRE campaign is totally carbon neutral? that's a HUGE deal!! they don't know because you don't mention it!! change the subject when a reporter asks you the same question AGAIN. answer the question you want to. it goes like this, "i think if you refer to last night's discussion you'll see that that question was already asked and answered (you're both lawyers, right? USE YOUR WORDS). if i may, i would like to take this opportunity to bring up the environment, as nobody seems to be asking any questions about this crucial subject...". that's how you do it, kids. and that would get attention).
but wait, i'm getting off point. the point is this.
you're on the same side in the end.
you're ripping each other apart in ways that are not going to allow you to backtrack when the primaries are over.
if you allow mccain to take this because of your stupid in-fighting i'm going to be really really angry. and you won't like me when i'm angry.

gratuitous blogging

ok, i don't really have all that much to say at the moment because
a) i have a lot going on in my life (new job possibly?!?!?, we're having a MESS of a time with immigration and gavin's work visa expires on the 13th and we somehow haven't been approved yet even though they said we would be by now, i still have NO AGENT, i could go on but will spare you).
b) there just really isn't that much going on that i want to talk about. ok, britney's in for psych treatment. i couldn't care less. i'm so tired of her it makes me ill.
c) there's lots of politics to talk about, but i'm going to save that for a double whammy mardi gras day/super tuesday post
d) i could talk about chinese new year but i'll save that for the actual day (the 7th).

BUT i'm tired of opening this up to see if i have comments and looking at that scary dead woman on that scientology post. so, i've decided to put up this kind of ridiculously funny youtube thing. it might not seem like you want to watch them, but you do. i promise. just do it. really.




and the follow-up video...

The war on Scientology

Here's a video that the Scientologists don't want you to see...



and an excerpt from antoher tom cruise speech that people are comparing to Goebbels'...




AND NOW THE WAR BEGINS????

i don't know who this woman is, but....

HOLY IMPLANTS, BATMAN!!

ugh, stupid blog

ok, i started a post on Wednesday about the Wars of the Roses. I just finished it today. for some reason it won't post it on top, so you have to scroll down a little to see it!!!
arrrghhh. it's just three posts down and i'm sure you will all find it fascinating and wonderful! so, don't forget to scroll down, read, and comment!!

much love,
nic

Heath Ledger's memorial protest?!? What is wrong with these people? No, seriously, what's wrong with them?

we all know by now about the sad death of the actor Heath Ledger. i'm not here to talk about the hows and whys of his death. i honestly don't care if it was suicide or accidental, what drugs he was on, or where they found him. he seemed like a good guy, he had a young daughter, i thought that he was a good actor who chose some really good projects to work on, and now he's gone. it's terribly sad.

what concerns me the most (other than the fact that his now 2 year old daughter has lost her father and the grief of his friends and family) is that there are INSANE right-wing Christian conservatives who are mocking his death and planning on picketing and protesting at any memorial or funeral services that will be held (some even say that if they are to take place in australia, that they will fly out there to picket). all of this is because of Heath's role in the film Brokeback Mountain.

a) do these people know that he wasn't really gay?

b) are they SO anti-homosexuality that they are going to devastate this man's family and friends by interrupting his funeral with shouts and jeers?

c) even if he was gay, he's dead now. why are they still on him?

d) what the hell is wrong with these people?

e) seriously, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

you can find what i'm about to print here on their UNBELIEVABLE website http://www.godhatesfags.com/ (seriously?)

this is all about the westboro baptist church

this is part of the news release that they put out. they are sick bastards.

"Yes. WBC will picket this pervert's funeral, in
religious protest and warning: "Be not
deceived; God is not mocked." Gal. 6:7. Heath
Ledger thought it was great fun defying God
Almighty and His plain word; to wit: God Hates
Fags! & Fag-Enablers! Ergo, God hates the
sordid, tacky bucket of slime seasoned with
vomit known as 'Brokeback Mountain' - and He
hates all persons having anything whatsoever
to do with it.
Heath Ledger is now in Hell, and
has begun serving his eternal
sentence there - beside which,
nothing else about Heath Ledger is
relevant or consequential."

the fact that these people are really going to do this makes me ill. the fact that they would even THINK to do this makes me ill. nothing else about him is consequential?!? yeah, i'm sure that Jesus is totally down with this decision, you fuckheads.

YOU WANT SOME BIBLE QUOTES, JACKASSES???

"Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1).”

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”

"But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."' (John 8:7)

Let a man who did you no wrong rest in peace. Let him family mourn him. Leave him be. If anything, pray for him. That's what Jesus would do. I don't even practice that faith and I know this. How is it that I know more about your God than you do? You are not Christians, you have created your own world of hate and you will dwell in it forever.

My heartfelt sympathy goes out to Heath Ledger's friends and family. I know that they are going through a really hard time right now, and I'm so sorry that you have these people to deal with on top of everything else. May he rest in peace. I'm sure he will be dearly missed.

speaking of poets, now it's time for my fave. may i introduce to you-- e. e. cummings

Edward Estlin Cummings was born October 14, 1894 in the town of Cambridge Massachusetts. he was a poet, painter, essayist, and playwright. his body of work encompasses more than 900 poems, several plays and essays, numerous drawings, sketches, and paintings, as well as two novels.

from wikipedia:
Despite Cummings' consanguinity with avant-garde styles, much of his work is traditional. Many of his poems are sonnets, and he occasionally made use of the blues form and acrostics. Cummings' poetry often deals with themes of love and nature, as well as the relationship of the individual to the masses and to the world. His poems are also often rife with satire.

While his poetic forms and themes share an affinity with the romantic tradition, Cummings' work universally shows a particular idiosyncrasy of syntax, or way of arranging individual words into larger phrases and sentences. Many of his most striking poems do not involve any typographical or punctuation innovations at all, but purely syntactic ones.

As well as being influenced by notable modernists including Gertrude Stein and Ezra Pound, Cummings' early work drew upon the imagist experiments of Amy Lowell. Later, his visits to Paris exposed him to Dada and surrealism, which in turn permeated his work. Cummings also liked to incorporate imagery of nature and death into much of his poetry.

While some of his poetry is free verse (with no concern for rhyme or meter), many have a recognizable sonnet structure of 14 lines, with an intricate rhyme scheme. A number of his poems feature a typographically exuberant style, with words, parts of words, or punctuation symbols scattered across the page, often making little sense until read aloud, at which point the meaning and emotion become clear. Cummings, who was also a painter, understood the importance of presentation, and used typography to "paint a picture" with some of his poems.


And here are some examples of my favorite poems (of his and of all time)... (and here it must be stated that most of his poems were unnamed and therefore are simply titled by the first line of verse. i will skip this formality when quoting his work, as that is not how he would want it done).

Me up at does

out of the floor

quietly Stare

a poisoned mouse

still who alive

is asking What

have i done

that You wouldn't have

______________________

O sweet spontaneous

earth how often have

the

doting

fingers of

purient philosophers pinched

and

poked

thee

,has the naughty thumb

of science prodded

thy

beauty .how oftn

have religions taken thee

upon their scraggy knees

squeezing and

buffeting thee that thou mightest conceive

gods

(but

true

to the incomparable

couch of death thy

rhythmic

lover

thou answerest

them only with

spring)

________________________

l(a
le
af
fa
ll
s)
one
l
iness

_______________________

who knows if the moon's

a balloon,coming out of a keen city

in the sky--filled with pretty people?

(and if you and i should

get into it,if they

should take me and take you into their balloon,

why then

we'd go up higher with all the pretty people

than houses and steeples and clouds:

go sailing

away and away sailing into a keen

city which nobody's ever visited,where

always

it's

Spring)and everyone's

in love and flowers pick themselves

______________________________

And now for (what i think) is the best poem ever written.

somewhere i have never travelled,gladly beyond

any experience,your eyes have their silence:

in your most frail gesture are things which enclose me,

or which i cannot touch because they are too near

your slightest look easily will unclose me

though i have closed myself as fingers,

you open always petal by petal myself as Spring opens

(touching skilfully,mysteriously) her first rose

or if your wish be to close me,i and

my life will shut very beautifully, suddenly,

as when the heart of this flower imagines

the snow carefully everywhere descending;

nothing which we are to perceive in this world

equalsthe power of your intense fragility: whose texture

compels me with the color of its countries,

rendering death and forever with each breathing

(i do not know what it is about you that closes

and opens; only something in me understands

the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses)

nobody,not even the rain, has such small hands

i'm going to try to simplify this whole mess for everyone... The Wars of the Roses

the wars of the roses

unless you've studied this period in english history (and even for some of us who have) it is hugely complicated and confusing and you think that all that really happened was that it let shakespeare to write 'henry V' and 'richard III'. oh, and you might have heard something about princes in towers, but do you even really know who they were or why it was significant that they were locked up (and probably killed)? it's doubtful. but, it's important to know history (and even more important when it's actually really exciting when you get down to brass tacks- if you can see through all of the bullshit.

SO- let's start it slow. you know that if a king dies the throne passes to his eldest son. if that son dies it passes to his eldest son NOT to his brother or brothers. Herein lies the start of the kerfuffle that would be the Wars of the Roses.

Just a brief lineage here (and yes, this if from memory- not wikipedia)

we started with William I who conquered in 1066 then-

William II then-

Henry I (Henry I had no sons, only a daughter named Maude or Matilda- depending on who you ask, Henry wanted her to take the throne. Upon his death the nobles freaked and essentially installed her cousin Steven to the throne- this led to a long a drawn out civil war which ended in a treaty that stipulated that upon Steven's death, Maude's son Henry would ascend to the throne NOT Steven's son, thereby putting the lines of succession to rights by having Henry I's grandson on the throne) so-

Steven I

Henry II (will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?- oooh, he's a post in himself)

Richard I (who was never really around and historians say was most likely gay which is why he got married and then promptly sent her to a convent never to see her again)

John I (this is Prince John of Robin Hood fame. We should all know him because he was such a right bastard that by 1215 he had lost the empire that his father and richard had left him and in that very year they made him sign the Magna Carta- if you don't know why that's important, call me. we have to have a talk). then-

Henry III (who caused his own little revolt with a great man leading the charge- Simon de Montfort- again, worthy of his own post). then-

Edward I- hammer of the Scots. surely you've seen Braveheart- as horribly inaccurate as it is. then-
Edward II- then-

Edward III- now this is where our troubles begin to emerge. The Plantagenet line started way back with Henry II. Just so that you know, we are talking about Plantagenet Kings here. Edward III had a whole mess of sons (and I mean a whole mess of them). His eldest Edward, the Prince of Wales, better known as The Black Prince, was all set to take the throne. Sadly, he died before daddy did. So, upon Edward III's passing, his eldest son Edward's eldest son took the throne (which is how it SHOULD be). So, we then get-

Richard II- here starts the real trouble. Richard died without an heir and so one of Edward III's grandsons stood up and took over (through a very weak claim to the throne he had because his Dad was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster- one of Edward III's sons). So, now on the throne we have a deviation from the actual line, although they are all still Plantagenets (meaning all descended from Henry and Edward III). now we have---

Hervy IV- who was a Plantagenet, but a Lancastrian king, meaning that he came from the side of the Duke of Lancaster. There was another side of this family as well. It stemmed from Edward III's son, Edmund, the Duke of York.

Now, the York side of the family was a little miffed because they thought (and rightfully so) that their side's claim to the throne was just as good as those of the Lancastrians-if not better. The Lancastrian symbol was that of a red rose, the Yorkist symbol was that of a white one. When we get into the real in-fighting this explains why it is called The Wars of the Roses.

even though there were still rumblings from the Yorkist side we managed to keep on going with the Lancastrian line- after Henry IV we get-

Henry V (Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead) and then his son after him-

Henry VI- first of all, history has not been kind to Henry. He ascended when he was something like 9 months old. His advisers were basically assholes and set him up so that when he did come of ae his kingdom was rife with discord and general unhappiness. He also suffered from bouts of sever mental illness (and this is primarily where I think that history has treated him unfairly). I think that his mental illness was genetic and the pressures of the throne and internal discord really kicked them into overdrive. Everyone in the kingdom (other than his advisers and other Lancastrians who had tons of power and money by now) said he was a nutter and he should go.

This is where the excitement begins... Henry's cousin, Richard, The Duke of York, descended down upon the king and (at first) just wanted to rid him of all of his awful advisers who were ruining the kingdom. It didn't work out this way. Through a long and drawn out series of battles (and exiles and re-emergences) The Yorkists ended up defeating Henry. Sadly, Richard had died in these battles, so his son became the first Yorkist King of England. so, now we have-

Edward IV- Edward was pretty popular but, needless to say, there were still battles and skirmishes as the Lancastrians tried to gain back the throne. There were some issues in his court (his primary advisor- Warwick- was PISSED when he married someone that hadn't been approved by him- this ended with Warwick imprisoning and trying to depose Edward, but with the aid of Edward's brother Richard it was unsuccessful). In the end, it worked out for the best (for a hot second). When he died his eldest son ascended the throne-

Edward V- he was only 12 when he ascended and he had been brought up under dubious circumstances- ie- by people- the Woodvilles- that the court did not like. Edward's brother Richard had been named the protector of England (which was common when the King is so young). Those who did not like the Woodvilles formed an alliance aiming to get Edward V off of the throne. Some say that Richard, Edward's uncle was one of them. Many historians today believe that this is crap and that he wanted his nephew to be king and wanted to simply remain as protectorate. Now, remember how Edward IV married someone who wasn't liked? Well, she was a Woodville. This is where it gets particularly sticky.

Richard (the uncle) or someone- the debate rages as to whether Richard was the one who went and got them- goes and gets the king (Edward V) and his younger brother from the Woodvilles. They are brought to the Tower of London.

Then a whole mess of nobles (some say Richard was one of them, some say he wasn't) declared that Edward IV's marriage to the Lady Woodville was illegal, therefore making the two boys (one of whom was King Edward V at the time) illegitimate. This meant that Richard would be the natural heir to the throne. And so...

Richard III becomes king. The Princes remain in the Tower, are often seen playing on the grounds...until one day they are not. They are never heard from or seen again. Some say Richard had them killed, most historians today believe that one of Richard's supporters killed them without his knowledge. It is also said that Richard was cruel, a cripple, a hunchback, and hated his nephews.

What IS known is this- before the reign of the Tudor dynasty (who would take over after Richard) there is NOT ONE THING in the historical record that in any way implies that he was a cripple or a hunchback. In fact, it is mentioned that he was a great warrior and in good physical health. There is also record stating that he was a very doting uncle who loved his nephews and was very close to them, as he was very close to his brother. There is record that says that he was a pious man, very charitable and giving, and that he was a beloved son of England. It is only after the NEW dynasty comes to power that suddenly Richard is a monster who killed his nephews...

We all know that the winner writes the history book

and Henry had to make it look like him being the King was the right thing for whatever reason so...

you be the judge on that one.

So, in simple terms-- there's this other guy now. His name is Henry. He has a link to the throne through the Lancastrian line. He's been living in France and his mother really really wants him to be king. He gathers a bunch of Lancastrian supporters (as well as support through his mother from France) and attacks. Henry defeated Richard III, killing him, at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

He then takes the throne to become Henry VII. Thus ends the Plantagenet line, and begins the Tudor dynasty.

Of course, all of this madness (which took place over a century) led to huge repercussions in England. It weakened the people's notion of the power of the monarchy (which would be strengthened again by the Tudors, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). It made it abundantly clear that infighting between nobles was severely detrimental to the well-being of the nation. It would then be up to the Tudors to regain control of the monarchy, its standing, its position of respect, and of the people of England.

The whole mess does make for a good story, though and we got some really good Shakespeare out of it. Whatever you do DO NOT watch that crappy Al Pacino Richard III movie. Ugh, so historically inaccurate and why on God's green Earth would you cast Winnona Ryder to play Queen Anne (Richard III's wife). She was probably high the whole time (which, you know, wouldn't you have to be to spend that much time with Pacino- HooHaa!!!)

from dream to legend to legacy...

may it one day become a reality.

MacDiarmid- Gavin's favorite poet, genius, and one of the founding members of what would become the Scottish Nationalist Party.

Ok, this might sound like a bit of a pain, but i cannot get this video to embed so that you can watch it on this blog. Meeg will attest to the fact that it is uber-cool and that you MUST watch it (it's about 2 mins long, tops). click on the link, then in the upper right hand corner you'll see a link to a video. click that and watch it. it is hugh macdiarmid reciting part of one of his trilogy of poems, 'hymns to lenin' while he walks along the edge of a wall. it's very odd and very cool.

http://www.luxonline.org.uk/artists/margaret_tait/hugh_macdiarmid-_a_portrait.html

read the post and then go back and watch the video. i promise that you won't regret it.

Hugh MacDiarmid was born Christopher Murray Grieve, in the Scottish border town of Langholm in 1892. MacDiarmid was interested by developments in contemporary poetry and literature in Scotland (as well as in Europe and Russia) and began to publish a poetry anthology entitled Northern Numbers as well as a literary magazine, Scottish Chapbook, which had as its motto 'Not traditions - Precedents!'’ MacDiarmid was also writing poetry and his first collection, Sangshaw, was published in 1925 with his major work, A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle, appearing the following year.
Like many Scottish writers of the early twentieth century, MacDiarmid was fiercely political, and a strong believer in socialism. He felt deeply that Scottish life and culture was ill-served by its political position and, in 1928, was a founding member of the National Party of Scotland - today's SNP. In later years his political stance shifted towards Communism, and, in 1964, he stood as Communist Party candidate against the then Prime Minister, Sir Alex Douglas-Home.
MacDiarmid spent much of the 1930s cut off from mainland cultural developments on the Shetland island of Whalsay, but he continued to write ground-breaking and stylistically innovative poetry, as well as extensive journalism in which he explained his vision for a Scottish renaissance that was both cultural and political. Central to this vision was his belief that the Scottish psyche could not be adequately expressed in the English language alone, and that to develop and write in a synthetic Scots was the only way to achieve a coherent national voice. This was complimented in the 1930s and 1940s when he emphasised the significance of the Gaelic language in Scottish literature and life. His later poetry engages a plurality of voices, languages and forms of expression.
In his later years, MacDiarmid's outlook became increasingly internationalist and the slow but steady growth of his literary reputation allowed him to travel abroad, including visits to the USSR and China. Although he is now recognised as the principle force of the Scottish Literary Renaissance, financial success eluded him for most of his life and his last 27 years were spent living with his second wife Valda at Brownsbank, a cottage (with little in the way of comfort) near Biggar. MacDiarmid died in 1978 and the cottage is now run as a museum and writers' centre.

THESE lines, from Hugh MacDiarmid’s epic poem of 1926, A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle, appear on the poet’s tombstone in the cemetery of Langholm

I’ll ha’e nae hauf-way hoose, but aye be whaur

Extremes meet – it’s the only way I ken

To dodge the curst conceit o’ bein’ richt

That damns the vast majority o’ men.

(Translated-

I'll have no half-way house, but always be where

Extremes meet- it's the only way I know

To dodge the cursed conceit of being right

That damns the vast majority of men.

here, MacDiarmid has taken this idea from Dostoevski- it means that he lives in extremities, he doesn't make due with the status-quo or settle into a niche of what is conceived to be correct. as soon as you begin to except so-called maxims, you cease to think for yourself and individuality begins to die.

example of his tremendous work (with english translation)

‘The Bonnie Broukit Bairn’

Mars is braw in crammasy,

Venus in a green silk goun,

The auld mune shak’s her gowden feathers,

Their starry talk’s a wheen o’ blethers,

Nane for thee a thochtie sparin’,

Earth, thou bonnie broukit bairn !-

But greet, an’ in your tears ye’ll droun

The haill clanjamfrie !"

In English-
Mars is handsome in crimson
Venus in a green silk gown
The old moon shakes her golden feathers
Their starry talk’s a pack of nonsense
None of them give a thought to you
Earth, you beautiful neglected child
But weep, and in your tears you’ll drown
The whole shooting-match