Sometimes I wonder about my iPod. Here are the first five songs it played on random shuffle this morning as I washed dishes and started potato soup in the crock pot.
1. Fly Me to the Moon -- Astrud Gilberto
I don't know who's in the video, but Astrud Gilberto was a popular Brazilian vocalist at the height of the Bossa nova movement in the 60s. This song was made famous by crooners like Frank Sinatra, but I think I prefer Astrud's version better.
2. Momisms (to the William Tell Overture) -- Anita Renfroe
Classic! Hysterical!
3. Psychotic Reaction -- Count Five
Seems... apt, after the mom one, doesn't it?
4. Leaning on a Lamp -- Herman's Hermits
I'm *fairly* certain it's a coincidence that this and the previous one were both released in 1966 -- two years before my husband was born, and nearly 14 before I was.
And finally...
5. Corcovado -- Astrud Gilberto
I rather think in this video she looks like she could have walked off the set of one of those super-cheesy (yet fun!) beach movies of the 60's -- you know the ones: Frankie and Annette, surfers versus bikers, girls in bikinis and boys in those gorgeous tight square-cut trunks. Anyway, Corcovado is both a mountain in Brazil and a National Park in Costa Rica; I'm fairly sure this song is referring to the former. Definitely a love song.
Anyway...videoless, here's the rest of the top 10:
6. It's Getting Better -- Mama Cass
7. Silly Love Songs -- Paul McCartney
8. Come Monday -- Jimmy Buffett
9. The Night Has a Thousand Eyes -- Bobby Vee
10. Andrew in Drag -- The Magnetic Fields.
You can't say my music doesn't have a sense of humor... ;)
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Human Pack
I should be at the store doing my grocery shopping; instead I had stuff tumbling over itself in my head and thought I should let some of it out before it's lost for good -- or takes over so deep I can't do anything else. This is a result of clicking on links from *this* to *that* to *hey, over here!* so I can't point you directly to any specific articles. It also has to do with Romance Novels and Erotic Romance and M/M Romance and...anyway. Onward.
One of the bits I read this morning was about homosexuality in animals, observations made by the people who make those kinds of observations about animals, and observations made by the people who make those kinds of observations about other people. And overwhelmingly, what I've noticed over the years, boils down to this: animals engage in homosexual behavior. Some of them flit from partner to partner, never bothering to learn names -- or even gender -- of the partner-of-the-moment, sowing their seed copiously. It may or may not take, depending on the partner's gender and fertility and whatnot, but...there you are. Those are the party/frat boys of the animal world. Others engage in long-term/permanent relationships with Just One Partner -- whether or not reproduction is involved depends on the genitalia. Still others are in long-term sexual relationships with members of the same genital club but will briefly defect just long enough to (hopefully) propagate the species, obeying primal biological necessity, before returning to the beloved partner.
Sound like any people you know?
The next thing I observed is the sheer volume of paranormal fantasy/romance, whether of a straight version or M/M persuasion, wherein one or more of the main characters is a shapeshifter or werebeing. Many many of these are series; plenty of the series follow a single couple through myriad trials and adventures along their course to True Love Ever After, but an equal if not greater number focus on different couples within a single unit -- pack or family or both. (Statistically, unless the pack is composed of unrelated persons who were cast out from their family groups for being gay, I seriously doubt there are *that many* gay werewolves in a single pack, though. Not that I mind, I'm just sayin'...) (and, yeah, just so you know...I've read WAY more of these in the M/M category. Probably because that's what I'm mostly reading right now.)
The difference is that within a pack of animals with no human side, those animals displaying "homosexual tendencies" are not cast out of their group, they are not treated as pariahs. As long as they can fend for themselves, other animals seem to be pretty much live-and-let-live about it. (What, do my freckles give me "redheaded tendencies"? I don't really understand that phrase -- I understand the individual words, but I think the usage is, at best, disingenuous.)
So here's what I think. I think we, as humans, are not as far removed from the animal as we would like to think we are. We believe the opposable thumb bestows some special form of self-awareness, a sense of Holier-Than-Thou, makes us somehow MORE than strictly Animal. And, in a sense, we do have some of that. We have fire. We have technology. We have domesticated animals and domesticated vegetables. And yet...does that make us better off? In the sense that we can now expand our living space to include areas that were once too cold or too hot, yes, perhaps. In the sense that we can support the kind of population growth that a lack of biological-imperative-driven fertility periods seems to inspire, yes. In the sense that we can now, to an extent, control the length or our lifespans, I suppose (although, really, that seems unnecessarily cruel in some ways. I don't exactly relish the day when I will be unable to care for myself and will have to sit through unending hours of same.)
But how are we putting that self-awareness to the test? Are we choosing to use it for general good? Are we accepting that we have the same proclivities as our animalian ancestors? We are all in search of food to eat, water to drink, shelter from cold and wet. We know that others are in need of the same things. Yet we choose to focus on superficial externals -- genitalia, sexuality -- as an excuse to decide who we feel deserves our time and attention, rather than helping out wherever we can and leaving the rest to be sorted by whoever's in charge of sorting (God, or some equivalent thereof, for most of us.)
'Scuse me; I got a bit derailed there. I was trying to make a point about pack behavior.
The pack is a unit of its own, composed of multiple individuals, and can go by many names in the animal kingdom -- hive, flock, herd...they all mean the same. When unaffected by people, these tend in general, although not exclusively, of loosely-related family groups.
And we humans have an urge to belong to a pack , or sometimes several of them. We define our packs differently. Your pack may be a family group, or a group of friends. It may be a business association, an arts council, a religious organization, a political affiliation. You may surround yourself with a pack connected by the same school, social group, ethnicity or geographic location. But you are part of at least one pack, and most probably more. And you change, from pack to pack -- the people in your family may see one You, while your office pack sees someone else with no relationship to the other beyond superficialities of appearance and home address. Perhaps you are conflicted, because the goals and ideals of one of your groups is in distinct contravention to another -- how do you reconcile a social life in which you're in love with someone of the same sex as yourself with a profoundly fundamentalist religious belief?
Maybe we need to start looking at all of the world as one big pack. Animals don't kick other animals out of the pack for any reason. We're not wholly animals anymore. We are aware of our actions; shouldn't our actions be *more* than those of animals? Even animals show compassion toward pack members who are injured; when did we (humanity as a whole) lose our ability to show compassion to all our fellows? Nobody says you have to like me, or want to make the same choices I made, but compassion dictates that you help me if they turn out to be the wrong choices. Compassion says that you support my right to live my life in a way that doesn't actually harm you.
One of the bits I read this morning was about homosexuality in animals, observations made by the people who make those kinds of observations about animals, and observations made by the people who make those kinds of observations about other people. And overwhelmingly, what I've noticed over the years, boils down to this: animals engage in homosexual behavior. Some of them flit from partner to partner, never bothering to learn names -- or even gender -- of the partner-of-the-moment, sowing their seed copiously. It may or may not take, depending on the partner's gender and fertility and whatnot, but...there you are. Those are the party/frat boys of the animal world. Others engage in long-term/permanent relationships with Just One Partner -- whether or not reproduction is involved depends on the genitalia. Still others are in long-term sexual relationships with members of the same genital club but will briefly defect just long enough to (hopefully) propagate the species, obeying primal biological necessity, before returning to the beloved partner.
Sound like any people you know?
The next thing I observed is the sheer volume of paranormal fantasy/romance, whether of a straight version or M/M persuasion, wherein one or more of the main characters is a shapeshifter or werebeing. Many many of these are series; plenty of the series follow a single couple through myriad trials and adventures along their course to True Love Ever After, but an equal if not greater number focus on different couples within a single unit -- pack or family or both. (Statistically, unless the pack is composed of unrelated persons who were cast out from their family groups for being gay, I seriously doubt there are *that many* gay werewolves in a single pack, though. Not that I mind, I'm just sayin'...) (and, yeah, just so you know...I've read WAY more of these in the M/M category. Probably because that's what I'm mostly reading right now.)
The difference is that within a pack of animals with no human side, those animals displaying "homosexual tendencies" are not cast out of their group, they are not treated as pariahs. As long as they can fend for themselves, other animals seem to be pretty much live-and-let-live about it. (What, do my freckles give me "redheaded tendencies"? I don't really understand that phrase -- I understand the individual words, but I think the usage is, at best, disingenuous.)
So here's what I think. I think we, as humans, are not as far removed from the animal as we would like to think we are. We believe the opposable thumb bestows some special form of self-awareness, a sense of Holier-Than-Thou, makes us somehow MORE than strictly Animal. And, in a sense, we do have some of that. We have fire. We have technology. We have domesticated animals and domesticated vegetables. And yet...does that make us better off? In the sense that we can now expand our living space to include areas that were once too cold or too hot, yes, perhaps. In the sense that we can support the kind of population growth that a lack of biological-imperative-driven fertility periods seems to inspire, yes. In the sense that we can now, to an extent, control the length or our lifespans, I suppose (although, really, that seems unnecessarily cruel in some ways. I don't exactly relish the day when I will be unable to care for myself and will have to sit through unending hours of same.)
But how are we putting that self-awareness to the test? Are we choosing to use it for general good? Are we accepting that we have the same proclivities as our animalian ancestors? We are all in search of food to eat, water to drink, shelter from cold and wet. We know that others are in need of the same things. Yet we choose to focus on superficial externals -- genitalia, sexuality -- as an excuse to decide who we feel deserves our time and attention, rather than helping out wherever we can and leaving the rest to be sorted by whoever's in charge of sorting (God, or some equivalent thereof, for most of us.)
'Scuse me; I got a bit derailed there. I was trying to make a point about pack behavior.
The pack is a unit of its own, composed of multiple individuals, and can go by many names in the animal kingdom -- hive, flock, herd...they all mean the same. When unaffected by people, these tend in general, although not exclusively, of loosely-related family groups.
And we humans have an urge to belong to a pack , or sometimes several of them. We define our packs differently. Your pack may be a family group, or a group of friends. It may be a business association, an arts council, a religious organization, a political affiliation. You may surround yourself with a pack connected by the same school, social group, ethnicity or geographic location. But you are part of at least one pack, and most probably more. And you change, from pack to pack -- the people in your family may see one You, while your office pack sees someone else with no relationship to the other beyond superficialities of appearance and home address. Perhaps you are conflicted, because the goals and ideals of one of your groups is in distinct contravention to another -- how do you reconcile a social life in which you're in love with someone of the same sex as yourself with a profoundly fundamentalist religious belief?
Maybe we need to start looking at all of the world as one big pack. Animals don't kick other animals out of the pack for any reason. We're not wholly animals anymore. We are aware of our actions; shouldn't our actions be *more* than those of animals? Even animals show compassion toward pack members who are injured; when did we (humanity as a whole) lose our ability to show compassion to all our fellows? Nobody says you have to like me, or want to make the same choices I made, but compassion dictates that you help me if they turn out to be the wrong choices. Compassion says that you support my right to live my life in a way that doesn't actually harm you.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Adventures in Baking -- I have a new cookbook!
So I actually bought this book a few months ago (by which I mean something less than a year, but I'm not guaranteeing how MUCH less; I don't remember exactly.) I've been wanting to try it, because the no-knead part of it is seductive, but upon reading through, parts of the preparation require more effort than "normal" bread-making.
However, I have some time today, and nothing else I want to do, so I decided to give it a shot, and maybe chronicle this first attempt.
The book is set up with several basic recipes (which can be stored in the refrigerator after rising so you can bake whenever you'd like -- I can do the rise at bedtime and make fresh bread the next morning for breakfast, if I want to go to the effort, but more on that later.) The basic recipes are followed by several variations on mostly form, although I believe later in the book it gets into add-ins as well. Each basic recipe builds in both ingredients and technique on the one before, so I'm starting on Master Recipe #1, and depending on how it goes...well, we shall see what we shall see. Perhaps there will be fresh bread for dinner tonight.
Now, just a word about that extra effort at the baking stage -- These recipes are for artisan-style bread, which means free-form (no loaf pans!) baked on a stone in the oven with water. In practical terms, what this means is you put a broiler pan on the bottom rack of your oven and a baking stone on the middle rack, then heat the oven up VERY hot (450*F). The loaf is shaped and set to rest on a separate cookie sheet, and when it's ready to go in the oven, and the oven is heated up, you have to quickly slide it from cookie sheet onto baking stone. I'm thinking I need to invest in one of those cookie sheets with three sides open or a pizza peel (but for now, I'm just going to use a regular cookie sheet flipped over).
So. Onward and upward!
Master Recipe #1: Easy Artisan Dough
6-1/2 c unbleached all-purpose or bread flour
1-1/2 T instant or bread machine yeast
1-1/2 T fine table or kosher salt
3 c lukewarm water
1. Measure. Spoon the flour into a measuring cup, level with a knife or your finger, then dump the flour into the mixing bowl.
2. Mix. Add the yeast and salt to the flour. Stir together with a wooden spoon or Danish dough whisk (oooh, I want!!). Pour in the water and stir together until just moistened. Beat 40 strokes, scraping the bottom and the sides of the bowl, until the dough forms a lumpy sticky mass.
3. Rise. Cover the bowl with plastic wrap and let rise at room temperature ( 72*F/22*C) in a draft-free place for 2 hours or until the dough has risen nearly to the top of the bowl and has a sponge-like appearance.
4. Use right away or refrigerate. Use that day or place the dough, covered with plastic wrap, in the refrigerator for up to 9 days before baking.
Here's my dough through #2, all mixed and ready to rise.
I don't know whether I'm going to start the actual baking part today or tomorrow, but whenever it is we'll be making one or more baby boules.
ETA: It's been more than a few days since I last wrote this, but I'm back for a quickie update. This is awesome; the first time I baked the bread, it turned out gorgeous and yummy and practically disappeared in no time flat. I have pictures.
We're thinking that this might make a decent bread bowl for soup; it's chewy, with a heavy crust. I'm gonna try it sometime with a nice, thick soup. YUM! :D
ETA: It's been more than a few days since I last wrote this, but I'm back for a quickie update. This is awesome; the first time I baked the bread, it turned out gorgeous and yummy and practically disappeared in no time flat. I have pictures.
We're thinking that this might make a decent bread bowl for soup; it's chewy, with a heavy crust. I'm gonna try it sometime with a nice, thick soup. YUM! :D
Monday, March 5, 2012
Why I hate Twilight...
So a couple of things gelled in my mind this weekend. If you like Twilight, please don't hate me, and understand that this is just *my* opinion. Take it with a grain of salt, or leave it, but don't think I'm judging you. (Ok, I won't lie. I may well be judging you. But I won't let it affect my feelings toward you. Promise.)
It's been a while since I last attempted to read Twilight. The first time I couldn't get farther along than a couple of chapters, but somewhat recently I managed to get 1/3 of the way through before endangering my walls with it. Yes, I found it a wallbanger. What of it?
Anyway...
There are two songs which kind of encapsulate the two biggest issues I have with this book.
Problem #1: Bella. To me, Bella is the beige curtains of this song. She doesn't have a personality, at least in the way that I perceive personalities. She just...is, like furniture; she only impinges on your consciousness when she collapses under you.
Riki Lindhome (of Garfunkel and Oates) -- Beige Curtains
Problem #2 -- Edward. Nearly as much of a cypher as Bella; he struck me as a caricature of a classic 80s Alpha-hole hero, crossed with Anne Rice, with the added disadvantages of being a poorly aged frat boy AND sparkles (let's be honest. The only people who can get away with glitter on their bodies are underdressed girls/twinks at clubs and pre-teen girls. Think for a minute about what this says about Edward. Really. THINK about it.) I would never date him, myself, and if I can't get into him, why the HELL would I want to read about him? I read about guys I'd date or hang out with or be friends with. Not the opposite. Therefore, the song that best represents those feelings is.... *drumroll*
Self Esteem by (again) Garfunkel and Oates -- Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci
Love these girls, love these songs...so, as a bonus for sticking with me through this, a song I expected to hate (but it grew on me):
This Party Took a Turn for the Douche -- Garfunkel and Oates
Look 'em up! You won't regret it!
It's been a while since I last attempted to read Twilight. The first time I couldn't get farther along than a couple of chapters, but somewhat recently I managed to get 1/3 of the way through before endangering my walls with it. Yes, I found it a wallbanger. What of it?
Anyway...
There are two songs which kind of encapsulate the two biggest issues I have with this book.
Problem #1: Bella. To me, Bella is the beige curtains of this song. She doesn't have a personality, at least in the way that I perceive personalities. She just...is, like furniture; she only impinges on your consciousness when she collapses under you.
Riki Lindhome (of Garfunkel and Oates) -- Beige Curtains
Problem #2 -- Edward. Nearly as much of a cypher as Bella; he struck me as a caricature of a classic 80s Alpha-hole hero, crossed with Anne Rice, with the added disadvantages of being a poorly aged frat boy AND sparkles (let's be honest. The only people who can get away with glitter on their bodies are underdressed girls/twinks at clubs and pre-teen girls. Think for a minute about what this says about Edward. Really. THINK about it.) I would never date him, myself, and if I can't get into him, why the HELL would I want to read about him? I read about guys I'd date or hang out with or be friends with. Not the opposite. Therefore, the song that best represents those feelings is.... *drumroll*
Self Esteem by (again) Garfunkel and Oates -- Riki Lindhome and Kate Micucci
Love these girls, love these songs...so, as a bonus for sticking with me through this, a song I expected to hate (but it grew on me):
This Party Took a Turn for the Douche -- Garfunkel and Oates
Look 'em up! You won't regret it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)