Posts
So...I have always loved me some Ellen Emerson White, particularly The President's Daughter, as anyone who knows what's up is well aware. Easily my all-time favorite young adult novel. (Which, as those who've read it know, doesn't seem like a young adult novel.)
And I think I even talked about it during the winter/spring/summer of 2008!
But if only I had known about this at the time....
http://ellenemersonwhite.com/archives/77
I guess I just wouldn't have felt so alone.
And that it's HER, my girl EEW, who felt that way? All the more delightful!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Illegitimate Israel
I was captivated by Madeleine Albright's descriptions of various diplomatic encounters, and her writing in Madam Secretary was quite persuasive about Bosnia, Kosovo, and other 1990s crises to which she responded. But she lost me with a few of her statements about "Israel"/Occupied Palestine.
"He acknowledged Israel's existence but not its moral legitimacy."
During the Clinton Administration's last-minute summit push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, Albright was frustrated by Yasser Arafat, whom she had met frequently and got along with well. She felt he wasn't doing enough to make concessions in spite of political consequences compared to the concessions Ehud Barak would make despite his political consequences. The above statement refers to Arafat, but it could also refer to me. Why "moral legitimacy"? First of all, why go around demanding that any country's "moral" legitimacy be acknowledged? That just tells me their "moral" legitimacy is up for debate. Secondly, I do not think Israel as we know it has moral legitimacy. As far as I can see, after enough Jews had moved to Palestine, they kicked out the Palestinians. I'm not sure what makes that "morally legitimate."
"If Israel accepted legal and moral responsibility for the refugees' fate, the very legitimacy of the country's creation would be undermined."
Well, perhaps it is time that "legitimacy" was undermined. What a disingenuous argument: we took these Palestinian lands, so we can't be responsible for the refugees because that would mean we should not have taken their land. Here is Albright's full paragraph about the issue of refugees:
"According to the UN's registry there were about four million Palestinians who had been or were descended from those made homeless by the 1948 and 1967 wars. The Palestinians asserted the right under international law to return to their homes. This quest had been the core objective of the PLO throughout its history. But if this right were exercised, Israel would lose its status as a predominantly Jewish state. And if Israel accepted legal and moral responsibility for the refugees' fate, the very legitimacy of the country's creation would be undermined in the eyes of its enemies. Such concessions were obviously not acceptable."
Ridiculous, again. She wants Arafat to stop saying any concession is unacceptable, but she takes a stand that Israel can't "admit" something that is a known fact: the birth of the state of Israel created Palestinian refugees.
Additionally, so what if Israel lost its status as a predominantly Jewish state? Where does it get off excluding other ethnic and religious groups??? Hello, isn't excluding other ethnic groups exactly what Hitler was all about -- and isn't that allegedly the point of their so-called moral legitimacy? What hypocrisy!
"Even the most open-minded Israelis have misgivings about a Palestinian state."
Like so many before her, Albright starts with a base assumption that Israel is somehow "right." The thinking goes, it is "right" for Israel to exist, it is "right" for Israel to exist where it does, and, worst of all, sometimes, this "right" has something to do with holiness and entitlement. I am routinely stunned by how many people -- not to mention biased U.S. foreign policy and gazillions in military aid -- take these claims seriously. But the people who were in Israel's way? Well, they don't seem to matter. Listen, I am happy to condemn the Palestinians' violent tactics, but unlike many, I also condemn the violent tactics of Israelis. Of which there are many. I think there needs to be a peaceful resolution and a halt to all the violence. So Israelis have "misgivings" about the Palestinians having official power? Maybe Israelis are afraid what they have done will now be done to them.
"He acknowledged Israel's existence but not its moral legitimacy."
During the Clinton Administration's last-minute summit push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, Albright was frustrated by Yasser Arafat, whom she had met frequently and got along with well. She felt he wasn't doing enough to make concessions in spite of political consequences compared to the concessions Ehud Barak would make despite his political consequences. The above statement refers to Arafat, but it could also refer to me. Why "moral legitimacy"? First of all, why go around demanding that any country's "moral" legitimacy be acknowledged? That just tells me their "moral" legitimacy is up for debate. Secondly, I do not think Israel as we know it has moral legitimacy. As far as I can see, after enough Jews had moved to Palestine, they kicked out the Palestinians. I'm not sure what makes that "morally legitimate."
"If Israel accepted legal and moral responsibility for the refugees' fate, the very legitimacy of the country's creation would be undermined."
Well, perhaps it is time that "legitimacy" was undermined. What a disingenuous argument: we took these Palestinian lands, so we can't be responsible for the refugees because that would mean we should not have taken their land. Here is Albright's full paragraph about the issue of refugees:
"According to the UN's registry there were about four million Palestinians who had been or were descended from those made homeless by the 1948 and 1967 wars. The Palestinians asserted the right under international law to return to their homes. This quest had been the core objective of the PLO throughout its history. But if this right were exercised, Israel would lose its status as a predominantly Jewish state. And if Israel accepted legal and moral responsibility for the refugees' fate, the very legitimacy of the country's creation would be undermined in the eyes of its enemies. Such concessions were obviously not acceptable."
Ridiculous, again. She wants Arafat to stop saying any concession is unacceptable, but she takes a stand that Israel can't "admit" something that is a known fact: the birth of the state of Israel created Palestinian refugees.
Additionally, so what if Israel lost its status as a predominantly Jewish state? Where does it get off excluding other ethnic and religious groups??? Hello, isn't excluding other ethnic groups exactly what Hitler was all about -- and isn't that allegedly the point of their so-called moral legitimacy? What hypocrisy!
"Even the most open-minded Israelis have misgivings about a Palestinian state."
Like so many before her, Albright starts with a base assumption that Israel is somehow "right." The thinking goes, it is "right" for Israel to exist, it is "right" for Israel to exist where it does, and, worst of all, sometimes, this "right" has something to do with holiness and entitlement. I am routinely stunned by how many people -- not to mention biased U.S. foreign policy and gazillions in military aid -- take these claims seriously. But the people who were in Israel's way? Well, they don't seem to matter. Listen, I am happy to condemn the Palestinians' violent tactics, but unlike many, I also condemn the violent tactics of Israelis. Of which there are many. I think there needs to be a peaceful resolution and a halt to all the violence. So Israelis have "misgivings" about the Palestinians having official power? Maybe Israelis are afraid what they have done will now be done to them.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Pyongyang raincheck addendum
In case I didn't make it clear in the previous blog entry, I will now: Bill should have gone to (North)Korea then. It was a mistake for him not to, and it led directly to all that has happened Korea-nuclear-wise in the last decade.
Pyongyang raincheck
Which to talk about first, (North)Korea or "Israel"? That is my dilemma today, upon finishing Madeleine Albright's excellent book Madam Secretary. I bought the book when it first came out six years ago, went to her book signing in Boston, and told her she was awesome. But I haven't got around to reading it until now. In some ways, that may be good: even more hindsight about the historical events of the 1990s. God do I miss the Clinton Administration. Life was better then. Easier, too. But that's not the point here.
Recently, as those of you who do not live under a rock know, Bill Clinton went to Korea and returned with the two journalists who had been convicted of illegally crossing the border from China into (North)Korea. While they were in captivity, everyone's opinion here in these United States seemed to be that it was terrible for them to be in a North Korean prison -- because! sputter! they're AMERicans! omg! -- and they should be released. (What benevolent thoughts, if any, there were toward the Korean prisoners in North Korea went sort of unmentioned.) Now that the two women have been released, some people are criticizing the Clintons for getting it done. Of course, one of the main voices to speak out against the triumphant return last week was former "ambassador"to the U.N. John Bolton, who would be such a miscreant joke were he not absurdly given actual power in the international scene, so it's not like we have to take that criticism terribly seriously. Why does anyone even publish his editorial, that's what I want to know. I was thrilled when Hillary laughed at the mere mention of his name.
But here's my point: Bill Clinton, as it turns out, owed (North) Korea a visit! I know, right? Who knew? In Madam Secretary, Albright chronicles her diplomatic efforts during the Bill Clinton Administration vis-a-vis Bosnia, Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, and others, including their efforts with both (South)Korean president Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-Il. Albright herself went to Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong Il. Turns out, she discovered, he was a perfectly intelligent and articulate person with whom she could converse and not the raving lunatic many make him out to be. Gee, what a shocker: a biased account of another country's leader by the U.S. media? A situation seriously misunderstood by the West? Why, I never!!
After Albright's visit, the wheels were in motion for Bill to visit, and he was willing to make that trip. Please go back and read that sentence if you missed it. While still President, Bill Clinton was planning to visit North Korea, was deeply engaged in diplomacy with North Korea, and cancelled at the last minute because, to quote Albright, he felt he had to choose between a trip to North Korea. "and a crash effort to reach closure with the Israelis and Palestinians." It was the end of 2000, and time was running out on the Clinton I Administration.
Yeah ugh. Because we all know how well that "crash effort" worked out. (But if you don't, stay tuned - I'll blog about Israel/occupied Palestine tomorrow.)
I remember the "sunshine policy" and the diplomacy, back in the days before the asinine "Axis of Evil" comment. But I learned from reading Madam Secretary about the details of the interactions and the summit-being-planned that Clinton had to kind of ditch out of of at the last minute. Basically, until this month he owed (North)Korea a visit. And I think it's fantastic that it worked out as well as it did, with a happy ending for Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to boot.
Recently, as those of you who do not live under a rock know, Bill Clinton went to Korea and returned with the two journalists who had been convicted of illegally crossing the border from China into (North)Korea. While they were in captivity, everyone's opinion here in these United States seemed to be that it was terrible for them to be in a North Korean prison -- because! sputter! they're AMERicans! omg! -- and they should be released. (What benevolent thoughts, if any, there were toward the Korean prisoners in North Korea went sort of unmentioned.) Now that the two women have been released, some people are criticizing the Clintons for getting it done. Of course, one of the main voices to speak out against the triumphant return last week was former "ambassador"to the U.N. John Bolton, who would be such a miscreant joke were he not absurdly given actual power in the international scene, so it's not like we have to take that criticism terribly seriously. Why does anyone even publish his editorial, that's what I want to know. I was thrilled when Hillary laughed at the mere mention of his name.
But here's my point: Bill Clinton, as it turns out, owed (North) Korea a visit! I know, right? Who knew? In Madam Secretary, Albright chronicles her diplomatic efforts during the Bill Clinton Administration vis-a-vis Bosnia, Kosovo, Israel/Palestine, and others, including their efforts with both (South)Korean president Kim Dae-jung and Kim Jong-Il. Albright herself went to Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong Il. Turns out, she discovered, he was a perfectly intelligent and articulate person with whom she could converse and not the raving lunatic many make him out to be. Gee, what a shocker: a biased account of another country's leader by the U.S. media? A situation seriously misunderstood by the West? Why, I never!!
After Albright's visit, the wheels were in motion for Bill to visit, and he was willing to make that trip. Please go back and read that sentence if you missed it. While still President, Bill Clinton was planning to visit North Korea, was deeply engaged in diplomacy with North Korea, and cancelled at the last minute because, to quote Albright, he felt he had to choose between a trip to North Korea. "and a crash effort to reach closure with the Israelis and Palestinians." It was the end of 2000, and time was running out on the Clinton I Administration.
Yeah ugh. Because we all know how well that "crash effort" worked out. (But if you don't, stay tuned - I'll blog about Israel/occupied Palestine tomorrow.)
I remember the "sunshine policy" and the diplomacy, back in the days before the asinine "Axis of Evil" comment. But I learned from reading Madam Secretary about the details of the interactions and the summit-being-planned that Clinton had to kind of ditch out of of at the last minute. Basically, until this month he owed (North)Korea a visit. And I think it's fantastic that it worked out as well as it did, with a happy ending for Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to boot.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Hopey Changey
Today while driving home from the dentist I saw something that was nothing short of hilarious. It is always good to see something hilarious on one's way to or from the dentist, I think. A little mood lightener.
I was second in line to turn left. The car first in line was waiting until the green light appeared and then cautiously began to turn left. This caused the third car in line, behind me, to honk immediately, because of course by not anticipating and gunning it, the first car in line had cost maybe ten or twenty milliseconds of the driver's day.
Needless to say, after we had all turned and were driving down the next road, the third vehicle, which turned out to be a pick-up truck, sped past me and the car in front of me, undoubtedly to make up those precious milliseconds. This was when I was privileged to behold the sign in the rear window of the cab of the pick-up.
It was on orange paper or posterboard -- hard to tell the material, although I do hope it was translucent for all of our sakes, if not the driver's -- and it covered the rear window. Somewhat baseball game sign style, it was written in large black marker letters: HEY DUMB-ASS! HOW'S THAT HOPE-Y CHANGE-Y THING WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
Fantastic, I tell you. Among the things I love about it, besides the bizarre behavior of a sign covering the entire back window, are how it caused me to ponder: how on earth has this person's life changed since Obama came into office? I mean, really? Here's this negative, derisive comment implying that we are going to hell in a handbasket or some such thing. But I became immensely curious as to what precisely has changed in this person's life? And if something has changed, was it really for the worse? Let alone a direct result of Obama? Because I would love to know what that is. It would appear to me that lives that have changed may include Guantanamo Bay detainees and CEOs of certain multimillion dollar companies, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the driver is not one of those. I am so curious as to what has changed. The number of beads of sweat on some TV commentator as he spews hot air? What?
I would love to see a "change" in my inability to have comprehensive health insurance, but I am still waiting on that one. I guess there is the change that we no longer have to live in the pesky shame of trying to make the world understand why "we" are not doing anything about having a White House occupier who kept stealing elections. That's definitely a good change, although it would have happened no matter who was elected. Oh yeah, and we now have a president who will talk about things over a beer, which totally rules, in comparison to our faux-righteous teetotaller warmonger.
Don't get me wrong: I thought (and still do) that Obama's campaign "slogans" were some of the most dumbed-down and empty rhetoric I had ever heard. As I stated many times, his campaign was a kind of shallow hypnosis that reeled in a lot of lemmings and had some bizarre effect on people that I will never understand, much like Michael Jackson or Harry Potter. But I somehow think this driver wasn't engaging in a critical analysis of Obama's rhetoric; the sign asked about results. Whether s/he was or not, I am still amused that s/he drives around with this homemade sign plastered across the back truck window.
Also, Hopey and Changey kind of sound like the eighth and ninth dwarves.
I was second in line to turn left. The car first in line was waiting until the green light appeared and then cautiously began to turn left. This caused the third car in line, behind me, to honk immediately, because of course by not anticipating and gunning it, the first car in line had cost maybe ten or twenty milliseconds of the driver's day.
Needless to say, after we had all turned and were driving down the next road, the third vehicle, which turned out to be a pick-up truck, sped past me and the car in front of me, undoubtedly to make up those precious milliseconds. This was when I was privileged to behold the sign in the rear window of the cab of the pick-up.
It was on orange paper or posterboard -- hard to tell the material, although I do hope it was translucent for all of our sakes, if not the driver's -- and it covered the rear window. Somewhat baseball game sign style, it was written in large black marker letters: HEY DUMB-ASS! HOW'S THAT HOPE-Y CHANGE-Y THING WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
Fantastic, I tell you. Among the things I love about it, besides the bizarre behavior of a sign covering the entire back window, are how it caused me to ponder: how on earth has this person's life changed since Obama came into office? I mean, really? Here's this negative, derisive comment implying that we are going to hell in a handbasket or some such thing. But I became immensely curious as to what precisely has changed in this person's life? And if something has changed, was it really for the worse? Let alone a direct result of Obama? Because I would love to know what that is. It would appear to me that lives that have changed may include Guantanamo Bay detainees and CEOs of certain multimillion dollar companies, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the driver is not one of those. I am so curious as to what has changed. The number of beads of sweat on some TV commentator as he spews hot air? What?
I would love to see a "change" in my inability to have comprehensive health insurance, but I am still waiting on that one. I guess there is the change that we no longer have to live in the pesky shame of trying to make the world understand why "we" are not doing anything about having a White House occupier who kept stealing elections. That's definitely a good change, although it would have happened no matter who was elected. Oh yeah, and we now have a president who will talk about things over a beer, which totally rules, in comparison to our faux-righteous teetotaller warmonger.
Don't get me wrong: I thought (and still do) that Obama's campaign "slogans" were some of the most dumbed-down and empty rhetoric I had ever heard. As I stated many times, his campaign was a kind of shallow hypnosis that reeled in a lot of lemmings and had some bizarre effect on people that I will never understand, much like Michael Jackson or Harry Potter. But I somehow think this driver wasn't engaging in a critical analysis of Obama's rhetoric; the sign asked about results. Whether s/he was or not, I am still amused that s/he drives around with this homemade sign plastered across the back truck window.
Also, Hopey and Changey kind of sound like the eighth and ninth dwarves.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
International courts
My girl Hillary, in Nairobi, expressed regret once again that the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court treaty. We talked a lot about the ICC during law school (where, as you know, I was of the International Law concentration). For those who have absolutely no idea what the ICC is, think roughly a permanent court for things like Judgment at Nuremberg and/or somewhere to try, for example, perpetrators of the Rwanda genocide.
Many people are opposed to the U.S. becoming a signatory (= submitting to its jurisdiction) to this ICC treaty, including more likely than not one of your state's politicians. And it takes two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty, as you may recall from AP History class. There are many valid things to say about the benefits, flaws, and intricacies of international institutions and I won't get into all of them here and now; what I will question is one argument against the court that has been presented often and was noted again today. Some people oppose the ICC because they don't like the prospect of U.S. soldiers being tried there for war crimes.
Why is this argument presented/taken seriously? We don't want to allow this court jurisdiction over us because then "they" would try "our" soldiers? Um, hello? What's good enough for the rest of the world is apparently not good enough for us. Does it occur to these people that maybe our U.S. soldiers should not be committing war crimes in the first place?!
This infuriated me every time we discussed it in law school, and it infuriates me now. Instead of arguing against torture, war crimes, murder of civilians, etc., theblowhards Congresspeople and their minions constituents shudder to think of their "heroes" (criminal soldiers) having to be accountable for what they have done.
Many people are opposed to the U.S. becoming a signatory (= submitting to its jurisdiction) to this ICC treaty, including more likely than not one of your state's politicians. And it takes two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a treaty, as you may recall from AP History class. There are many valid things to say about the benefits, flaws, and intricacies of international institutions and I won't get into all of them here and now; what I will question is one argument against the court that has been presented often and was noted again today. Some people oppose the ICC because they don't like the prospect of U.S. soldiers being tried there for war crimes.
Why is this argument presented/taken seriously? We don't want to allow this court jurisdiction over us because then "they" would try "our" soldiers? Um, hello? What's good enough for the rest of the world is apparently not good enough for us. Does it occur to these people that maybe our U.S. soldiers should not be committing war crimes in the first place?!
This infuriated me every time we discussed it in law school, and it infuriates me now. Instead of arguing against torture, war crimes, murder of civilians, etc., the
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Cooking shows and the economy
So I'm really disappointed that The Next Food Network Star is Melissa and not Jeffrey, and I have figured out why. I am officially tired of people using The Recession as an excuse for everything. Among the other reasons Bob (one of the awesome trio of judges) noted on his blog for choosing Melissa, he said that her "budget and time-conscious recipes seemed perfect for these times." Ugh! So instead of Jeffrey's entertaining Ingredient Smuggler wherein the "sophistication of his recipes wouldn't have appealed to everyone," we get Ten Dollar Dinners with Melissa d'Arabian, which Bob calls "sophisticated but accessible home cooking that viewers constantly tell [Bob] they want to learn."
The thought of more budget home cooking is exactly why I won't be watching Melissa's show, even though I like Melissa. I watch the Food Network when I want to be entertained, to escape, to indulge in something cool, to salivate over this or that delicious concoction I behold. If I want to learn about budgeting, I watch Suze Orman. (No, really -- I love me some Suze! "People first, then money, then things!") But I also feel like the Food Network is already made of people trying to get their sophisticated recipes to appeal to you the home cook. I think that is the very point of a network of celebrity chefs! It's not like it is a new or different concept just because Melissa is charming and has a different personality and background life story. Again, ugh.
While I can accept that there may be a "mandate" of focus grouped Food Network viewers asking for the same old boring crap, I am angry at those viewers, and I am angry at Bob for playing the "these times" card. Everywhere you go right now, it's "Try our recession special!" or "Hard times happy hour" or what have you. Have you noticed that even people who still have their jobs and their houses are prattling on about The Recession? Why? Their lives are no different, but it's like they have to be on the Recession bandwagon, and they've suddenly discovered it might be a good idea to have a household budget. Well, gee, no kidding!
And by the way this whole Cash-for-Clunkers program really gets my goat. The news has showered me with cries of joy the past few days because oh-boy-people-are-buying-CARS-again! with their Cash For Clunkers vouchers! Don't forget I was in Michigan, to make matters worse. Since when should news reporters and anchors be cheerleaders for the economy? Who gave them that job? So, oh boy, because of these vouchers maybe the Big Three companies won't totally die their painful deaths. Sure, it's OK for the government to subsidize your NEW CAR. But health care? If there's a public option for health care then suddenly Obama's a socialist and we all might as well put the Berlin Wall back up. What gives?
I'm tired of it. I want Jeffrey to take me away with his exotic ingredients -- which by the way he then makes accessible.
The thought of more budget home cooking is exactly why I won't be watching Melissa's show, even though I like Melissa. I watch the Food Network when I want to be entertained, to escape, to indulge in something cool, to salivate over this or that delicious concoction I behold. If I want to learn about budgeting, I watch Suze Orman. (No, really -- I love me some Suze! "People first, then money, then things!") But I also feel like the Food Network is already made of people trying to get their sophisticated recipes to appeal to you the home cook. I think that is the very point of a network of celebrity chefs! It's not like it is a new or different concept just because Melissa is charming and has a different personality and background life story. Again, ugh.
While I can accept that there may be a "mandate" of focus grouped Food Network viewers asking for the same old boring crap, I am angry at those viewers, and I am angry at Bob for playing the "these times" card. Everywhere you go right now, it's "Try our recession special!" or "Hard times happy hour" or what have you. Have you noticed that even people who still have their jobs and their houses are prattling on about The Recession? Why? Their lives are no different, but it's like they have to be on the Recession bandwagon, and they've suddenly discovered it might be a good idea to have a household budget. Well, gee, no kidding!
And by the way this whole Cash-for-Clunkers program really gets my goat. The news has showered me with cries of joy the past few days because oh-boy-people-are-buying-CARS-again! with their Cash For Clunkers vouchers! Don't forget I was in Michigan, to make matters worse. Since when should news reporters and anchors be cheerleaders for the economy? Who gave them that job? So, oh boy, because of these vouchers maybe the Big Three companies won't totally die their painful deaths. Sure, it's OK for the government to subsidize your NEW CAR. But health care? If there's a public option for health care then suddenly Obama's a socialist and we all might as well put the Berlin Wall back up. What gives?
I'm tired of it. I want Jeffrey to take me away with his exotic ingredients -- which by the way he then makes accessible.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Vacation winding down
We have been at Brian's family's house at Lake Michigan for a few days. Everyone gathered together for the graveside service and burying of ashes of Brian's grandmother who passed away in January. Before and after that there has been lots of time to sit, read, go to the beach, hang out with cousins, read on the porch some more, eat, eat quite a lot, go on long bike rides, go to Saugatuck, and just generally relax. I finished reading the first book I brought and am almost done with the second.
I love sitting on the beach at the Great Lake: it is kind of like an ocean, but at the same time you are totally aware you are not at the ocean. Part of this has got to be about salty air but it is partly visual and other-sensual. The house ("cottage" - I think I will never be able to call it that) is part of a neighborhood of houses on a winding hillside road outside of the actual town of Holland (and by the way, is QUITE a hill when you are returning from a run/bike ride). There are other house owners about but one can also stay in some of these places as vacation rentals. It takes about five minutes to stroll down to the Lake Michigan beach. Other highlights include the Big Red lighthouse, the sort of man-made Lake Macatawa (I guess I should call it "man-altered") and lots of trees. Of course there are also lots of bugs, which I pretty much blow off, something I've never done in "real" houses. I like relaxing here. This is our third time hanging out here, and each trip is the same but also different. I was happy to find an independent bookstore in Saugatuck, which has a couple streets of restaurants, art galleries, earthy-crunchy shops, touristy quaintness, and the like. I wanted to buy something from the independent bookstore just to support it but really have no extra space at all since I'm traveling back to Phoenix with only a carry-on (down with checked baggage fees!)
Next up, we will be back in Phoenix through August and then return to the Midwest and attempt to move...somewhere where someone wants to employ us. Lately, Chicago has floated to the top of the possibilities, but we really haven't decided at all. I am still thinking of our next city as just a place to mark time while I try to get a job abroad, so on some level it doesn't matter where it is, except that I really want to try something new.
Meanwhile, the finale of The Next Food Network Star aired last night. I like Melissa but I totally found myself rooting for Jeffrey and especially the show he concocted with Alton -- the "Ingredient Smuggler" -- I so want to watch that show every week! Except now it doesn't exist because he didn't win. Now that TNFNS is done, I officially care about nothing but baseball on television again until the return of Lost.
Also, the 'T' key on my computer keyboard is not functioning properly. His is erribly frusraing.
I love sitting on the beach at the Great Lake: it is kind of like an ocean, but at the same time you are totally aware you are not at the ocean. Part of this has got to be about salty air but it is partly visual and other-sensual. The house ("cottage" - I think I will never be able to call it that) is part of a neighborhood of houses on a winding hillside road outside of the actual town of Holland (and by the way, is QUITE a hill when you are returning from a run/bike ride). There are other house owners about but one can also stay in some of these places as vacation rentals. It takes about five minutes to stroll down to the Lake Michigan beach. Other highlights include the Big Red lighthouse, the sort of man-made Lake Macatawa (I guess I should call it "man-altered") and lots of trees. Of course there are also lots of bugs, which I pretty much blow off, something I've never done in "real" houses. I like relaxing here. This is our third time hanging out here, and each trip is the same but also different. I was happy to find an independent bookstore in Saugatuck, which has a couple streets of restaurants, art galleries, earthy-crunchy shops, touristy quaintness, and the like. I wanted to buy something from the independent bookstore just to support it but really have no extra space at all since I'm traveling back to Phoenix with only a carry-on (down with checked baggage fees!)
Next up, we will be back in Phoenix through August and then return to the Midwest and attempt to move...somewhere where someone wants to employ us. Lately, Chicago has floated to the top of the possibilities, but we really haven't decided at all. I am still thinking of our next city as just a place to mark time while I try to get a job abroad, so on some level it doesn't matter where it is, except that I really want to try something new.
Meanwhile, the finale of The Next Food Network Star aired last night. I like Melissa but I totally found myself rooting for Jeffrey and especially the show he concocted with Alton -- the "Ingredient Smuggler" -- I so want to watch that show every week! Except now it doesn't exist because he didn't win. Now that TNFNS is done, I officially care about nothing but baseball on television again until the return of Lost.
Also, the 'T' key on my computer keyboard is not functioning properly. His is erribly frusraing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)