Misson

Ahh...airline ticket booked. Through a complicated series of maneuvers to arcane to explain, the whole thing cost me $56.20. (It involved an old, canceled ticket, so few will likely be able to duplicate this.) Looks like I'll be driving down from Miami, though. It's been a few years since I've driven A1A down the Keys, so I sort of look forward to it. Wish I were driving it right now, in fact. One time I arrived at the airport in continental (non-island) Fla ready to leave for Detroit only to learn DTW was snowed in...so I rented a car and drove back down the Keys at 2am for a two day extension on my vacation (two days was the soonest they predicted I could fly back.) For the hell of it, I rented a convertible - it was a wonderful trip with the almost non-existent traffic (it being a school night) and the moon shining off the water on the drive down the Intercoastal... *sigh*

In an unusual turn of events, there is no quote, but lots of people interested in guessing one (usually it's the other way around.) The last quote was one from Six String Samuri (which I have yet to see) and was guessed by Captain Sterling.

Yet another reason to like it. Think about how cool it would be over a meeting table or in a library. Everyone could pull a lamp down to the position they wanted it.

Pirates have existed as long a sea travel has existed. There are records of piracy from as long ago as ancient Egypt. The Renaissance can cover a broad time period, from about the 14th through 17th centuries. There were several famous Elizabethan era (which is smack in the middle of the Renaissance) pirates including Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir John Hawkins, Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Richard Grenville. The Golden Age of Piracy (which s probably what you're thinking of, as that's what most people think of when they consider pirates) can be broadly defined from the late seventeenth to the early eighteenth centuries, so the popular conception of pirates would have started at the tail end of the Renaissance according to the era I mentioned above. (I'll leave the discussion for why the popular conception of pirates is severely tainted by Hollywood to someone else. ) One of the more renowned books written on the topic was actually written near the end of the Renaissance: The Buccaneers of America by Exquemelin. Your local library probably has a copy of it; it's quite interesting reading. (This topic should probably be moved to Twill.)

Uh huh. They sure chose the right group to do the soundtrack. I kept getting this feeling of deja vu watching this when it occurred to me - it was a lot like Barbarella - all the way down to those cheesy-looking flying angel people. (Lots of cheese in this movie...) I looked it up and, sure enough, it was the same producer. The style also kinda' reminded me in a way of Fellini movies. (Alas, I don't really get Fellinin movies - I wrote a rather scathing review of 8 1/2 on Netflix which is roundly hated by the other NF denizens who read reviews of 8 1/2. Ah, well. Fortunately, this film doesn't have the same lack of comprehensible plot or narrative that that film did.) The "golly gee wiz" main characters were....something. I guess they were channeling the original 30s serial material. I liked the skull masks the red guys wore. Plus it's always nice to see Timothy Dalton and Topol in meaty roles. And I also liked that everyone played this pretty straight, despite all the surrounding goofiness. I don't know the current quote.

Brain: "Behold, I can create fire from a little box." Cannibals: "So what?" "Big deal." "Let's eat 'em." Brain: "I can steal your souls and put them in this glass." Cannibals: "So what?" "Big deal." "Let's eat 'em." Pinky: "I can make bubbles with my spit." [the cannibals gasp and begin to bow] Brain: "Now do you believe we were sent by your god?" Alan the Cannibal Leader: "Naw, that's just really cool." I occasionally bring up this decorating magazine domino that I signed up for for free on Amazon.com because they usually have approximately one interesting thing a month in there (IMO). This month, they had a picture of a chandelier that's just really cool. Of course, there's costs $3000 and won't be released until fall of this year (which is just absurd - usually their products aren't quite this absurdly priced...) However, I may make one, if I can find a place to put it. (It has a tall profile, so it needs to go in a room with a high ceiling). Anyhow, without further ado... From the March 2008 copy of domino, "3 Green Houses."

The Art of Connecting by Lara Ewing and Claire Raines. I was reading it over winter break and set it down in favor of 17th century surgery books. But I want to read Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs (to better understand people who believe anthropomorphic global warming can destroy the world Ok, that's not really the reason.) by by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. But I figured it was only fair that I finish my other book in this genre first. So I decided to read a chapter a day of Connecting, which has turned out to be easier than I thought (even with copious note taking), so I'm reading several a day. I'm also in the middle of The Surgeon's Mate by John Woodall (not the one by O'Brien) which is absurdly hard to read because of the script. (I hate those "s's" that look like "f's." Hate 'em, hate 'em, hate 'em! Who the heck thought that was a good idea anyhow? Whhhhhhyyyyyyyy?! I have to read half the stuff twice to figure out what word he's using! Add to that the fact that some of the words are very out of date and...well, it's a good thing I'm committed to reading this or I'd have tossed it aside forever.) For the time, it's temporarily on hold while I get to Mistakes because I want to use the material in an upcoming article I'm writing. Oh, and I'm reading my Nonverbal Communication textbook for class. Interesting - although it again involves copious note-taking. Curiously, many of the students in my class do not read the textbook. I have found this repeatedly in my classes, which just boggles my mind. Why bother to buy it?

The new quote is too easy for me. Yes, Will Farrell is another one whose films I don't much usually care for. Although I really enjoyed him in Stranger Than Fiction - of course he played against type there. I would guess it's because I don't generally like pain-and-suffering or extremely base jokes (like scatological humor...is that the best you can come up with?)...except those things are in the ZAZ films and I don't mind them there much. Maybe it's because the ZAZ films just thrown them (and everything else) in and don't dwell on them like they're some brand of premium humor device that needs to be explored in deep fullness. Of course, then there's Austin Powers...but some of those jokes really are too much. If he hadn't gotten such a funny take on some of the Bond silliness, I may not like them as much. (Someone needs to parody the Roger Moore Bonds...if it's possible to parody a parody. )

I have no clue on the current quote. I do tend to enjoy wonderfully absurd movies. though. (For example, I like all the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker movies.) Oddly, I like the stupid humor in those, but usually don't like the SNL-style stupid humor in movies. (Animal House and Austin Powers excepted.) I wonder what the difference is? Oh, and to anyone who likes rather weird romantic comedies, I suggest Cashback. This film is an odd mixture of ideas - romantic comedy, introspective teen "indie film" journey, a dash of coming of age, time travel (sort of) and soft core porn. You wouldn't think all those things would mesh, but here, they seem to. It's worth seeing for the fascinating choreography of bizarre, disparate elements, the intelligent script and the winning ending. (Am I OT? Sorry. )

Cabin Boy? ( I have no idea. And I've never actually seen Cabin Boy on basic principles. The same ones that forbid me from seeing Adam Sandler or Rob Schneider "comedies.") That's the second time Jill's gotten me on Flash Gordon. I should really see that one...

DeNiro usually plays a great everyman. Pirates captains are often portrayed as over-the-top and a cross-dressing pirate should be doubly so. (It was awfully sporting of him to take the role, though.) He was good in the scene where they were haggling over the price of the electricity. Of course, that's an everyman/mobster sort of thing. Now, Michelle Pfeiffer...she was just awesome in her role. One of the great actresses of our time, I think. She seems to be able to play from one end of the spectrum to the other and pull it off. She can even play against her looks and pull that off too.

I just saw this last night. It is a fun movie. Claire Danes was fine as a blonde star, so my concern was for naught. However, I personally thought DeNiro was sort of flat in his role. He didn't strike me very convincingly as being a pirate, a cross-dresser or a mentor. (Wouldn't you have loved to have seen Sean Connery in that role? He can play such a great mentor. I don't know how he'd fare as a cross-dresser...although there was that whole Zardoz get up...) Also, what exactly were the pirates supposed to be pirating? They seemed more like the electrical equivalent of 19th century whalers to me. Still, it wouldn't have mattered what they were, they were fine for the part of comic relief, allies and temporary rescuers - a good, fun movie.

Nicholson can get away with murder, can't he just? Here's the whole thing (you'll either find it incredibly funny or incredibly offensive ): Jack Raving About Women

No one? It's a movie from the 80s.

Here, try this one: Mistakes

Should I post the waterlogged pic again...? Nah! Happy Birthday. I have the cure for just what ails ya', captain!

Something like this view? http://www.callahandigitalart.com/photocar...viewImage=14752

There's always the "ghosts" of the yellow fever victims reputed to hang around the latrines at Fort Zachary Taylor in Key West. (I never saw 'em, though. Someone told me you have to believe in them to see them.) o_O

I just saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix and, while it's not one of my top favorite movies ever, it was a really good movie. They covered everything without making you feel like they were just going out of their way to cover everything (like they have in the past on occasion). A lot of stuff got left out (as it had to be), but I didn't think it detracted from the story much (if at all). Props to Evanna Lynch for her portrayal of Luna Lovegood (my second-favorite character in the books). She did a bang-up job. Helena Bonham Carter also made a rather bit character interesting (as she frequently does - she's one of those wonderfully underrated actors. Or maybe she's not - she gets lots of roles. Her characterizations are usually worth a look, even in a bit part like this.) I would have liked to have seen more of Fred and George (as always) although at least they weren't quite as shortchanged by the movie as they often are. I would also have liked to have seen more of Tonks, but you know they had to cut somewhere...I suppose we'll see more of her in the future. Did anyone else notice that Grawp looked like a young Charles Bronson? Or is it just me?

Yeah, 4th string Buckys are the skeleton of choice - I have two of 'em. I also have a female (Buckys are male skeletons) that I bought about 10 years ago before I'd ever heard of Buckys. I just noticed that this one (which was apparently from 1948) is a sculpt unique from both the Bucky (which has a very high rib cage) and the female I have (which has more erect ribs and a different head sculpt entirely). I just thought that one was cool. Thanks for the tips on paint washing bones! I generally don't touch my skeletons directly because I reuse them all the time and I never know what effect I want to go for. I frequently use painter's tape, liquid latex and toilet paper for mottled skin. That way you can just rip the tape off, latex, paint, tp and all. Works like a charm!

I was wandering around eBay looking for old medical instruments when I came across this: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...em=330207861503 For those of you who are at least passingly familiar with skeleton replicas (*ahem* Lily), look closely at this one. It's different than both the standard female and Bucky skeletons you can buy. The positioning of the bones and the sculpt is different. Ooooh, I'd like to have three different kinds of skeleton replicas... (I don't know why this is, however.)

Hmmm.... not sure the process of mourning is a hang up. It isn't, but it can become one. Excellent point. I didn't exactly say that in my statement, but you're quite right. Some learning produces fear. Curiously, psychologists believe that all fears are learned except the fear of falling and the fear of loud noises. Which is why I think I've liked you since the beginning of my arrival here. (I don't think there's many qualities better in people than independence of mind.)

I never said you were selfish. I don't know you other than from here. However, holding on to grief for someone like some great burden that must be carried seems every bit as selfish as saying you won't care what happens when you're gone. (Except one person is gone and the other, as I understood the statements made previously, lingers about in a sort of half-life desiring something that is impossible. "This has been taken from me and my life is forever altered and ruined and nothing will ever fix that." That suggests to me that this person won't let anything or anyone help - which seems pretty selfish. On top of all that, this is a psychologically unhealthy behavior. It is certainly not a romantic one as we are often led to believe. In fact, there is no way for me to deal with someone's grief. Grief is a feeling. A feeling is a response or reaction to a thought. Thoughts are in each person's head. If said person wants to change their thoughts they are the only ones that can do so. They must deal with their own grief. I never asked you to. Apathy? From my experience with the grief process, I can tell you that most of what others said had little impact on the process. It was a learning and growing process for me. But then, I find sympathy maudlin and even voyeuristic. Empathy is at least somewhat more palatable, but I've learned that I'm better off processing such things for myself - see my previous comments dealing with grief. Since I want this for myself, I give others that luxury as well. Which I perceive as being unselfish. It has taken years of reflection and reading to come to where I am on this topic. I used to fear death (of myself and of others). Now I do not. I think I have grown as a result. Your learning experience will be different than mine. I perceive being hung-up on someone else's death as fearing something. Fear is often the antithesis of growth; it certainly stunts growth. Learning banishes fear. So on this topic, either the person who cannot move on is afraid to do so for some reason or they fear that the person gone is somehow worse off for their leaving. (I may be missing other possibilities here.) Note that missing someone is different than not being able to let go of their death and move forward. Sure, I occasionally miss people who are gone, but at that point, I try to remember who they were and how they added to my life when they were here rather than indulging in grief over what is now missing. I don't mean any of this personally, nor am I saying it directly applies to your situation. I don't know your situation. We hadn't even been talking of it before. I'm explaining what I've learned. I do believe deeply that if you're not learning, you're not growing and if you not growing, you're dying (metaphysically speaking).

Grief is a lesson. As with all life lessons, if you do not learn them, you usually wind up repeating them. Perhaps your friend should be happy for the time he was with the woman rather than focusing on her absence - and more specifically, his perceived loss. (Which, in some ways, is quite selfish on his part.) True, grieving is part of loss, but if you let that define the rest of your life, you are not learning and you (and typically others) suffer as a result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_resilience

From past discussions with you, I know that you and I have the same, er, "problem" with things that take our fancy. (I just found another sea surgery manual by an author of whom I wasn't even aware from 1596. now all I have to do is get to my uni library to to copy the pdf. I am currently reading excerpts of William Clowes chirurgy books. He was a sea surgeon who eventually became one of Queen Elizabeth I's surgeons.)