

Thank you, Steven!
OK: I still love Matt Smith as the Doctor (because bowties are cool!) but I've fallen for David Tennant, and thus, prefer him to Matt. (Sorry, Matt: you can still whisk me off to Europe and marry me!)




In case you missed it, a story circulated around the Web on the eve of President Obama’s trip that it would cost U.S. taxpayers $200 million a day — about $2 billion for the entire trip. Cooper said he felt impelled to check it out because the evening before he had had Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Republican and Tea Party favorite, on his show and had asked her where exactly Republicans will cut the budget.
Instead of giving specifics, Bachmann used her airtime to inject a phony story into the mainstream. She answered: “I think we know that just within a day or so the president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day. He’s taking 2,000 people with him. He’ll be renting over 870 rooms in India, and these are five-star hotel rooms at the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. This is the kind of over-the-top spending.”
The next night, Cooper explained that he felt compelled to trace that story back to its source, since someone had used his show to circulate it. His research, he said, found that it had originated from a quote by “an alleged Indian provincial official,” from the Indian state of Maharashtra, “reported by India’s Press Trust, their equivalent of our A.P. or Reuters. I say ‘alleged,’ provincial official,” Cooper added, “because we have no idea who this person is, no name was given.”
“It was an anonymous quote,” said Cooper. “Some reporter in India wrote this article with this figure in it. No proof was given; no follow-up reporting was done. Now you’d think if a member of Congress was going to use this figure as a fact, she would want to be pretty darn sure it was accurate, right? But there hasn’t been any follow-up reporting on this Indian story. The Indian article was picked up by The Drudge Report and other sites online, and it quickly made its way into conservative talk radio.”
Cooper then added: “Again, no one really seemed to care to check the facts. For security reasons, the White House doesn’t comment on logistics of presidential trips, but they have made an exception this time." He then quoted Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, as saying, “I am not going to go into how much it costs to protect the president, [but this trip] is comparable to when President Clinton and when President Bush traveled abroad. This trip doesn’t cost $200 million a day.” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said: “I will take the liberty this time of dismissing as absolutely absurd, this notion that somehow we were deploying 10 percent of the Navy and some 34 ships and an aircraft carrier in support of the president’s trip to Asia. That’s just comical. Nothing close to that is being done.”
Cooper also pointed out that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the entire war effort in Afghanistan was costing about $190 million a day and that President Bill Clinton’s 1998 trip to Africa — with 1,300 people and of roughly similar duration, cost, according to the Government Accountability Office and adjusted for inflation, “about $5.2 million a day.”
When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, we have a problem. It becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues — deficit reduction, health care, taxes, energy/climate — let alone act on them. Facts, opinions and fabrications just blend together. But the carnival barkers that so dominate our public debate today are not going away — and neither is the Internet. All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did — so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people’s first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it.

LAWRENCEBURG — A man who was forced to eat his beard at knifepoint said Tuesday he is satisfied with the punishment of his two assailants, even though they avoided jail time.
"There's no hard feelings," Harvey Westmoreland, 41, said in an interview at his home in Anderson County. "I mean, I ain't going to speak to them, and they better not pull in my driveway."
Troy F. Holt, 47, and James E. Hill, 51, were sentenced Tuesday in Anderson Circuit Court in connection with a bizarre altercation in May 2009, when Holt cut off Westmoreland's beard and forced him to eat it. Hill, meanwhile, held a sickle blade to Westmoreland and his brother, Joseph, 33.
Asked what it was like to eat his beard, Harvey Westmoreland said, "Well, did you ever chew on a sponge? That'd be about what it would be like."
What started the assault is in dispute. Harvey Westmoreland said it began over a riding mower that he sold to Holt. Holt said it was over a woman.

Actually, I soon discovered that a substantial number of the names listed in my address book belong in the category of Frenemy, an incredibly useful word that should be in every dictionary, coined by one of my sisters when she was a small child to describe a rather dull little girl who lived near us. My sister and the Frenemy played together constantly, invited each other to tea at least once a week, were inseparable companions, all the time disliking each other heartily.
I wonder whether most of us do not, in fact, spend more time with frenemies than with actual friends or outright enemies? Those fringy folks whose proximity, either territorial or work-related, demands the frequent dinner invitation and acceptance of their return hospitality? Pondering the potential guest list, dear reader, how often have you and your spouse bickered on in this fashion: “Well, if we ask Geraldine, we’ll have to ask Mary and her awful boy-friend.” “We can’t just ask Peter from my office and not the others—makes for bad blood. If we ask Peter, we’ve got to have the lot.”

...the question of being important inside in one...
~Gertrude Stein to Samuel Steward,
letter of January 12, 1938

As a child, I read what Moomintroll books were available to me in my small town's library, though in the past couple of years I've been able to read some more Moomintroll, but it wasn't until this past year that I was made aware of Jansson's adult fiction. The first book I read was The Summer Book.
The True Deceiver is about Katri Kling, an outsider in a small snowbound village called Västerby, who is raising her brother Mats and attempting to earn through whatever (but honest) means enough money to build her brother a boat (of his own design) and to make them secure. Katri is seen daily walking through the snow with a dog, untethered, always at her side. To gain monetary security, she begins a relationship with Anna Aemelin, the village's wealthiest and most reclusive member. Anna makes her living illustrating children's books about a family of rabbits and while she is lauded for ability to recreate the forest floor. Anna Aemelin had the great, persuasive power of monomania, of being able to see and embrace a single idea, of being interested in one thing only. And that one things was the woods, the forest floor. Anna Aemelin could render the ground in a forest so faithfully and in such minute detail that she missed not the tiniest needle...Anna Aemeling made people see. They saw and recalled the essence of the forest, and, for a moment, experienced a vague yearning that felt pleasant and hopeful. (12-13)
It was a shame that Anna spoiled her pictures by putting rabbits in them...[m]oreover, the fact that she drew little flowers on the rabbits dispelled much of the deep-forest mystique. (13)
Katri and Anna couldn't be more different: while Katri is cold and calculating with her night thoughts, Anna seems warm and caring. Katri keeps to herself and Anna is more social. Katri is a good judge to whom many of the villagers brought their disputes and questions about money, while Anna had no head for money. But, at least, in Anna's case most of this is surface: it was a way to keep people at bay. Most of what Anna does is in reaction to other people: she accepts gifts of liver from the town storekeeper though she can't abide the sight of blood. She starts and continues correspondence with fans of her artwork (children) that she really wants nothing to do with. She lets herself be cheated by not only local shop owners but also the national businesses that use her illustrations or in which she has money invested. And all in an effort not simply to be nice, but to be left alone. It seems that while Katri is nominally willing to deceive Anna to gain access to Anna's money - though even this Katri eventually acknowledges openly to Anna - it is Anna who is the true deceiver of the title because most of her life she has been deceiving herself.
In the process of Katri and Anna developing a relationship, Anna seems to grow up and aware, but also loses her ability to trust and her ability to draw the forest floor. But Anna isn't the only to suffer, Katri's life is thrown in disarray as Anna begins to lash out at just about everyone: Katri's dog no longer answers her commands and at one point tries to attack Katri. Katri's plan to have built and to give her brother Mats a boat (which is the very foundation for her relationship with Anna in the first place) is stolen by Anna.
There is so much in this book. Though even in some of Jansson's Moomintroll books there is darkness, The True Deceiver is the darkest thing that I've ever read by her, but it isn't the darkness of suspence or horror but of a long, ice-covered winter, of self-deception, of the forest floor. Jansson's has a way of writing that is very evocative - it's almost a spell of creation, an equation of a chemical reaction. As Jung said, "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances. If there is any reaction, both are transformed."
In this instance for Anna to be able to live in the world, Katri who had begun Anna's transformation must lie to pull Anna happy medium between two extremes, and in the process Katri changes herself.Will it go on like this? Probably. Does she think she's the only one who's tired, hiding there under her coverlet, giving up because the world isn't the way she imagined it? Is it my fault!? How long does a person have a right to go around with blinders - what does she expect, this Anna Aemelin...what more does she want me to do? If she really were what she pretends to be, everything would have been wrong, everything I did and said and tried to get her to see, it would all have been monstrous. But her innocence left her a very long time ago, and she never noticed. She eats only grass, but she has a meat eater's heart. And she doesn't know it, and no one has told her. Maybe they don't care enough about her to take the chance. What should I do? How many different truths are there, and what justifies them? What a person believes? What a person acomplishes? Self-deception? Is it only the result that counts? I no longer know. (175-176)




Soft Skull Press, the indie publisher that was rescued from financial ruin when it was acquired by the Berkeley-based publisher Counterpoint in 2007, became a West Coast outfit on Friday after 17 years in New York with the closing of its office in the Flatiron District. Both of its full-time staffers, editorial director Denise Oswald and associate editor Anne Horowitz, were laid off, and titles that were already in the pipeline have been reassigned to editors at Counterpoint.
According to Counterpoint CEO Charlie Winton, Soft Skull will live on from California, though there will not be any one there dedicated to running it. Mr. Winton, who founded Publishers Group West in 1976 and made his name in the book business as an innovative indie distributor, said that while the number of titles published through the Soft Skull imprint will drop from around 40 per year to 20, Counterpoint's editors will acquire and publish books for the Soft Skull list, thus keeping the brand alive.
Mr. Winton's conception of that brand is broad. "We see the role of Soft Skull as introducing new writers," he said, when asked to define the imprint's sensibility. "In general, those writers are probably going to be a little younger and maybe a little edgier."

[Kentucky native] Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, announced today to New Hampshire's diocesan convention that he will retire at the end of 2013. It appears as if the decision was made primarily due to the negative attention he has received from all over the world since his historical election in 2003.
“Death threats, and the now worldwide controversy surrounding your election of me as bishop, have been a constant strain, not just on me, but on my beloved husband, Mark” and on Episcopalians in the state, he said.

Anti-gay bullying is being blamed for the suicide of 14-year-old Brandon Bitner of Middleburg, Pennsylvania on Friday. Bitner walked 13 miles before throwing himself in front of a truck.

MSNBC has unsuspended Keith Olbermann and he'll be back on the air tomorrow night. "After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night's program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy," MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement released late Sunday. "We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night."