Tuesday, October 30, 2012

My cousin in Texas heard I like grapefruit so he shipped some north. They're not bigger than typical grapefruit but they're prettier.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Hello, Moon ...

Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Pasta Fairy just stopped by with a dish of this tasty goodness.

Normally, I try to not eat dinner in the middle of the afternoon, lest I reinforce my early onset senior-citizen-ness, but there was absolutely no way to resist today.

You should definitely make this. Or make a wish. Perhaps The Pasta Fairy will grant it.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

An Open Letter To Richard Mourdock ...

Mr. Mourdock:

I understand that you are a man of faith.

And I understand that it is your faith that informed what you said last night in the debate: “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

You were just saying what vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan has also said, that the method of conception is immaterial, that life is life, and that life should be preserved no matter what, even if the preservation of that life means that the United States mandates that a woman who has been assaulted in the most heinous of ways is forced by her government to endure, against her will, a pregnancy and bear the child of her rapist, a rapist who, in many states, has paternal rights to the child and can therefore inflict further pain on the woman he raped by pursuing custody of the child and remaining a presence in the woman's life for years to come.

Of course, you will never, ever, under any circumstance, find yourself in that situation.

And I find it fascinating that those who have been the most vocal about telling women what they should or should not be able to do inside their own bodies are men.

Men. Over and over again, men who will never find themselves in that situation are very comfortable deciding what women should do.

How very easy for you. You can wrap yourself in the mantle of your faith and proclaim that women should be forced to carry pregnancies that are the result of rape because you believe that your God ordained that pregnancy as a gift.

How very simple.

I ask you, though, to consider an alternate view.

I am not religious. And I do not believe in God as the Bible defines God.

So in the event that I were raped and I became pregnant as a result of that rape, do you know how I would understand that series of events?

As biology.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Not a gift from God.

Biology.

A sperm fertilizing an egg and that egg implanting itself in the wall of my uterus.

Whether I would choose to carry that pregnancy or not is immaterial.

What is material is that you have absolutely no right – none whatsoever – to force any woman, through legislation, to endure the outcome you require of her.

You do not have that right, sir. You do not have that right.

No one has that right. No one. Only the woman who has been raped has the right to decide what is right for her body. Her psyche. Her life.

Today you said, “I spoke from my heart. For speaking from my heart, for speaking from the deepest level of my faith, I cannot apologize."

You are entitled to your faith. But you are not entitled force others to act according to your faith.

One of the tenets of your faith is that God gave humans free will, is it not?

If so, humans are free to decide the courses of their own lives, to decide what is right and what is wrong, what is to be done and what is to be left undone.

And they – at least, those who believe – according to your faith, live their lives knowing that they will one day appear before God and answer for their decisions or, if you will, their sins.

That is between each human and their God, Mr. Mourdock. You do not enter into it.

You need only answer for your own life.

Until then, stay out of mine.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Congratulations! It's A Book! ...

I'm always pleased to find an unexpected package in my mailbox. Today was one of those days.

Earlier this year, my friend Steve introduced me to his friend Rich. Rich was writing a book and looking for an editor. We talked, we got the sense that we'd like working together, and a little collaboration was born.

Fast forward to today and I now hold in my hands Rich's first book, Building Value: The 5 Keys for Achieving Success.

I could not be more proud of him. There are many people on this planet who want to write a book (I'm raising my hand) or who hope to write a book or who think they can write a book.

Then there are the people who actually put pen to paper or hands to keyboard – and sometimes head to desk, I expect – and in the end, after the writing and rewriting and editing and tweaking and formatting and publishing, there it is, in the world. I find that admirable and amazing.

Anyone who knows me knows that a businessperon I am not, but for those who are, I heartily endorse Rich's book. I can see how folks can get so caught up in the day-to-day activities of running their business that they don't make the time to think through what they want to achieve, long term, in a systematic way. Rich'll help you jumpstart that thinking.

It's written in a very conversational tone and, at just shy of 120 pages, it's a quick read, whether you read it through on a weekend afternoon or take in a chapter each day on the way to work, presuming you're on a bus or train. (It's not available as an audiobook. Not yet, anyway.)

It is, however, available in both paperback and Kindle versions from Amazon and in a variety of other formats from Smashwords, too.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

The light in my kitchen right now is making everything look like a painting.

The Thrill Of The Hunt ...

I get an outsize thrill from finding something cool that costs next to nothing.

In this dollar-store world we live in, it's easy to buy a lot of stuff for cheap.

But finding something beautiful that's been deemed unwanted and cast off to a thrift-store shelf?

That's what I'm talking about.

Yesterday, I was schmying about and found this little guy. He's about the size of Champagne glass but much heftier. He could be a stand for a pillar candle. Or he could be an interesting vessel for a dipping sauce on a tray of crudite. Or he could be a ring holder on dresser. Or he could be a place to stash paper clips in an office. Or he could contain air-freshener crystals in a room in need of some scent.

Who knows, really. He could be useful and beautiful in a lot of ways.

And he came home with me yesterday for the princely sum of 40 cents.

He won't stay with me, though. He is destined for greater things, a life more glamourous than a thrift-store shelf.

And I shall continue my hunt for frugal finds.

Friday, October 19, 2012

False Equivalency ...

I had little inclination to listen to The Sunday Papers with Rick Kogan, Sunday mornings on WGN. Not because I dislike Rick – quite the contrary – but because I don't like Sunday-morning noise. I need quiet on Sunday mornings. Quiet and coffee. And no guest, however interesting, and no amount of Rick's radio-perfect rasp could entice me to tune in. Sometimes, though, I would listen later online.

But now Rick is the host of The Afternoon Shift on WBEZ-FM 91.5 and so, when I'm at my computer between the hours of 2 and 4 – which is often – and when I remember to listen – which is less – I click the link that I've saved.

This afternoon, when I tuned in, Rick was talking to Walter Jacobson, famed Chicago newsman and author of a new book.

Let's pause for a moment of full disclosure: I know Rick from my days at the Chicago Tribune and it would not be inaccurate to call him a friend, though we haven't had a drink together in years.

I do not know Walter personally though I know Walter as many Chicagoans know Walter, given that he was and is a fixture in living rooms as half of the iconic anchor duo that reported and reports the day's news. Bill Kurtis, Walter's better half, as it were, has been known to me for decades, too. My parents watched them both religiously. (Bill, I should also disclose, is also a friend. He likes my oatmeal-raisin cookies.) My parents still watch them, actually, and are glad to have them back, at least until their contracts run out.

So I was listening today as Rick asked Walter questions about his memoir and of course the conversation found its way to the state of news today, and Walter made an earnest point about cable news not being news but rather entertainment, which I understand but would disagree with on several points.

But then he compared Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow and that's when I yelled at my screen.

I don't tend to blog about Rachel but I tweet about her often, and post links to segments of her show to both Facebook and Twitter.

Am I biased? Absolutely.

But I can also articulate, clearly and at length, the vast, vast difference between her and her show and Rush Limbaugh and his.

Yes, I surely can. Grab a beverage. Settle in.

I do not listen to Rush's show directly. I can't bear it. But I am a consumer of news – actually, "gorge" might not be too strong a word – and so I am well acquainted with Rush's diatribes.

His most famous this year, of course, was his three-day tear on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law school student who appeared before an all-male panel in Congress to discuss birth control.

Her testimony was about the importance of access to birth control, including its medical indications. It is a serious issue that affects, potentially, more than half of the population of this country.

On his show, Limbaugh called Sandra a slut. And a prostitute. And he didn't let up. For three days.

Never mind that his comments revealed his lack of knowledge about how birth control even works, he spent three days intermittently maligning a woman for testifying before Congress about its importance.

He lost a lot of advertisers. I was happy to be a part of the Twitter effort that encouraged advertisers to cease advertising on his show.

And no, it wasn't a First Amendment issue. Rush is still on the air. The government did not shut him down. He is free to spew all the vitriol he pleases and I am free to encourage his advertisers to sever their ties. His advertisers, likewise, are free to continue to advertise with him or not.

Here's a clip from yesterday's show in which Rush tells women what the Obama campaign thinks of them. "Biden ... Obama ... every one of their surrogates is doing nothing but insulting you. I'd be tired of it. If it's not binders, all you care about's free contraception. All you care about's getting an abortion and having the government pay for it. The way they look at women, the way they see you [long pause] all they think you do is have sex, want birth-control pills, and then want an abortion afterwards and they're gonna make sure that whatever you want in that regard, you get."

Never mind that it makes no sense that a woman would want birth-control pills and "an abortion afterwards." The former is meant to prevent the need for the latter, Rush.

Also, he doesn't seem to have covered much ground from his Sandra Fluke days, does he?

Meanwhile, thinking about Rachel, a few things spring to mind.

Most immediately, her guest tonight for The Interview will be Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations. Update: Here is Rachel's interview with Kofi Annan. This is one of her questions: "Do you feel like the United States' turn with the election of Barack Obama toward a more respectfully multi-lateralist approach to international affairs is a substantive change and has it had any unintended consequences?"

I just tried accessing Rush's site to verify that no, in fact, he does not have guests on his show, and my browser freaked out. Duly noted, browser. I won't do that to you again. But I think it's safe to say that Kofi Annan did not do an interview with Rush Limbaugh today.

Recently, Rachel has been covering the voter-suppression efforts nationally but with a consistent focus on the goings on in Ohio. Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted has undertaken many efforts to curtail voting hours leading up to the November 6 election. This week, in fact, the Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal of a ruling from a lower court. Husted wanted to eliminate early voting for the three days preceding the presidential election. Though the Supreme Court refused to intervene and let the lower court's ruling stand, Husted has truncated the hours that the polls will be open on those three days.

But I first learned of the story in Ohio because Rachel brought it to national attention with her reporting that elections officials in each Ohio county were voting on whether to expand early voting. Each county has two Republican officials and two Democratic officials. In the Republican-leaning counties, all were voting to extend early voting, Republicans and Democrats alike. In the Democratic-leaning counties, Republicans were voting against early voting, leading to 2-2 splits. And in the event of ties, who casts the tie-breaking vote? Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted.

And so, for a time, the reality in Ohio was that Republican-leaning counties would have extended early voting and Democratic-leaning counties would not.

That is an important story.

And earlier this year, Rachel did an amazing special report on nuclear containment. Click here and navigate to March 19, 2012 to watch the show which is accessible as links to each segment from that evening but not as a full hour. (The transcript of the show is here.)

That is a very important story.

Has Rush Limbaugh ever done anything even close to such a story?

No.

Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh are not the same.

Does Rachel sometimes deliver her stories with humor or anger or snark? Yes, she does. And so, in that way, is her show entertaining to watch? Yes, it is.

But the substance of what she presents every night is important. It is news. I see stories on her show that I do not see reported in the "mainstream media."

Her book, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power (click here to read an excerpt), is a compelling read on a topic of global significance.

In what world should I be interested in reading a book about the unmooring of American military power?

In Rachel's world, that's where. And I wasn't alone. It was on the New York Times' best-seller list. Hell, even FOX News's Roger Ailes wrote a blurb.

(I should also disclose that I have a relative who works for Crown Publishing, but that has nothing to do with my endorsement of the book.)

Rush, by comparison, hasn't published anything in 20 years, and his books were titled The Way Things Ought To Be and See, I Told You So.

So, no, Walter Jacobson, Rush and Rachel are not the same. And attempting to draw that parallel is a big part of what is wrong with the media today.

Objectivity is necessary, indeed, the objective reporting of facts. But the facts of a story don't always result in balance. And attempting to create or inflate one side of a story to counterbalance the other side is a dangerous pursuit.

The "both sides do it" meme is laziness. Rarely do "both sides do it," in equal amounts, every time. And sometimes, not at all.

A newsman should choose his words more carefully.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Telling Moments ...

The latest issue of O features interviews with both the President and First Lady and Governor and Ann Romney.

The thing I noted about the interview with the the President and First Lady is just how real they are as people. The President gives Michelle a lot of credit for what's gone right in his life, they laugh easily. I can relate to them. Perhaps because I've gotten to know them through the press for four years. Perhaps it's Midwest realism, since they call Chicago their home. In any event, it was an enjoyable read but it contained nothing truly remarkable.

And then I read the interview with Mitt and Ann. In my view, Mitt is anything but polished when talking with the media. He comes off as uncomfortable, even having spent a fair amount of time in public life and campaigning, but what struck me were a couple of Ann's exchanges with Oprah. Obviously, Ann is less accustomed to speaking to the press, but if I were her press person, I would have cringed when I heard her say these things:

Oprah: [To Ann Romney] So when's the last time you saw him? Other than on TV.

Ann Romney: I don't watch TV anymore.

O: You don't?

AR: I can't. I just can't deal with it, if I'm going to have the calmness and peace that I need to have.

O: Yes. Because calmness and peace is the whole reason you're here on this lake [gestures to the view]. You can't enjoy it if you're gonna let the TV in.

AR: I can't let the TV in. It's just too much noise.


I appreciate that part of Ann's coping with MS requires her to have as little stress as possible, but if she can't handle the tone of the campaign, how could she ever expect to handle being First Lady if Mitt were to win, if they were in the spotlight every day for the next four – possibly more – years?

Oprah goes on to ask about the kids and grandkids, about kids and pushing buttons. Especially boys.

O: And you kept having boys. Did you ever think, Gosh, it would be nice to have a girl?

AR: Well, it was in those days when you never knew what you were having, and so each time I'm like, You're kidding. No, you're kidding. By the fifth time, I was like, I'm finished! This isn't changing, this isn't going to get any better. And it's so funny that Craig, who was my fifth, was the most delightful, the most easygoing, the most wonderful child, and I was so disappointed that he was a boy. But you get over it.

"This isn't going to get any better"? "I was so disappointed that he was a boy"? But she got over it?

Who says those things about their children? To anyone, let alone a reporter, let alone a reporter who, in this instance, is Oprah?

Will her admissions come as news to Craig? Or has she been telling him all along that she was disappointed when he was born?

Yikes.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Her Say ...

This is a serious post.

Sometimes, on this blog, I am silly. Sometimes, I am given to snark.

But this is a serious post.

Just in case there was any doubt about my tone.

This morning, on Twitter, I retweeted a tweet – from a man – that read: "save your war on women crap for the bimbos"

Of course, any jerk who is prone to tweeting such things will respond to a retweet. He will be hell bent on getting the last word.

This morning, I was up for a bit of a fight.

"Point made," I had commented when I posted the retweet.

"the point was made, only women who fall for this war on women crap are bimbos :)" came his reply.

Another tweeter jumped in and brought up rape as a political issue.

I replied: "Fascinating. Almost always men discussing what is/not rape and calling the 'war on women' fake."

The original tweeter replied: "the war on women is fake, just liberals fearmongering for bimbo votes :)" Again with the smiley face.

My response: "You can tell me the war on women is fake when you get a vagina."

His: "i laugh everytime i hear 'war on women', the dumbest political thing dems have come up with"

Mine: "Check in with me on Nov. 7th and let me know how hard you're laughing when women re-elect Obama."

His: "i wouldn't call all male democrats women, most all but not all"

I did indeed let him have the last word. There is no point in perpetuating the absurdity.

You'll note his assertion that men who vote Dem are essentially women.

So women are bimbos and liberal males deserve emasculation.

Such is a portion of the Twitterverse, and as goes the Twitterverse, so goes the world.

But as I wrote, I find it fascinating that it's almost always men discussing what is and is not rape and calling the "war on women" fake.

If you're a certain kind of man, it must be pretty easy to convince yourself of that.

If you're a certain kind of man, it must be a necessary bit of self-preservation to tell yourself that men still rule the roost, that men can do whatever the hell they want, with impunity, and anyone who dares object is just a bimbo.

I wonder if women who vote Republican are exempt?

But then, if you're a certain kind of man, I presume that you believe that if a woman is smart enough to vote Republican, she must also know her place.

Arguing with a certain kind of man is fruitless. The scales will never fall from his eyes. A certain kind of man needs to go through life willfully blind.

But yes, there is a war on women. And no, we do not expect men, even enlightened men, to fully understand.

They have never been where we are. They have always been, in the eyes of their gender, "better" than women.

But here we are, women, fighting battles once again that we thought were won 50 years ago.

Here we are, protesting government-mandated transvaginal ultrasounds.

Here we are, listening to lawmakers – men, always men – discussing categories of rape.

Here we are, wondering why we still earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by a man and why we have to sue for the right to pay equality.

Here we are, in so many ways.

And if we speak up, we are labeled sluts or prostitutes or bimbos or whores.

By men who insist that there is no war on women.

We've come a long way, baby, but there's still a long, long way to go.

Good Times, October Edition ...

The October cookie installment for the angelo:HOME blog features Pumpkin Cookies with Sweet Cheese and Pecans, perfect for a picnic on a fall day, say, in Central Park.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Nap Inducer ...

I was hungry. I had some leftover pumpkin puree and evaporated milk in the fridge. Mix. Stir. Voila!

Mind you, I'm about to lapse into a coma from all the flour and sugar, but they're really good!

Thanks for teaching me how to cook, mom!

This Is Not A Blog Post. This Is A Study ...

Wow. That was easy.

I'm very grateful to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan for enlightening me.

For years now, I've been writing blog posts.

I didn't realize that I could have been writing studies.

But look! My first-ever study! It was as easy as typing the word.

Study.

Ta da!

In this study, I offer absolutely incontrovertible proof that the Romney-Ryan ticket is a disaster for this country.

Geez, this study-writin' business is freakin' sweet!

All I have to do is write whatever I want and then anyone, anywhere, at any time, can cite it and – PRESTO! – everyone has to take it as gospel.

Of course, the Romney-Ryan ticket really is a disaster for this country but there's no need for me to provide specifics.

Romney-Ryan feel no need to provide specifics about, well, anything and they're running for the presidency and vice presidency, for Pete's sake.

(As Mitt Romney already knows, it's good to add a "for Pete's sake" to a statement every so often. It helps the utterer seem folksy and we all know that folksy is good for the country. George W. Bush was folksy and he didn't do anything wrong, right?)

So, consider this yet another contribution to Obama's re-election effort.

Cite away, all you needers of studies to cite!

You are so welcome.

Monday, October 15, 2012

Really, Jayson? Really? Part IV ...

It's been more than a year since I posted an installment of Really, Jayson? Really?, but I spied some items this morning that inspired me to post.

Let's start with an apron. Yes, it's French. Yes, it's "vintage." ("20th century," which could be 1999, eh?) Why, though, is it $150?

Vintage French Apron - $150

Next, an antique leather doctor bag. I like doctor bags. I think they're cool. I do not, however, think they're cool enough as to warrant a mortgage payment.

Antique Leather Doctor Bag - $895

Next, a very spiffy – if not a little creepy – vintage dog house. But if you love your dog enough to spend this kind of money on a dog house, you probably love your dog enough to let it sleep inside.

Vintage Dog House - $2,495

Next, a "vintage trunk." I have a "vintage trunk" in my living room. I use it as a coffee table. I bought it at an antique store somewhere in Indiana. It cost me $40, which, admittedly, was a deal. Others I'd seen that weekend were around $200. Still, at that price, you could buy 20 trunks for the cost of one of Jayson's.

Vintage Trunk, $3,995

And finally, if you happen to be in the market for an antique carved wood pig, Jayson's got you covered. And if you're longing for a pair of antique carved wood pigs – and, really, who isn't? – Jayson's got you covered, times two. And for less than $5,600, how can you resist?

Antique Carved Wood Pig, $2,795 each / Two available, so that'd be $5,590 for the pair

Friday, October 12, 2012

Fall Morning ...

I was clever enough to wear gloves.

It's chilly this morning, in the 40s with a bit of a breeze. Mostly sunny with the occasional moments of grey when a cloud moseys by.

I took my coffee for the first half of my walk and scouted color. Then I popped back by the house to set down my coffee mug, grab my camera, and head back out to take a few snaps.

Oh, how I love this time of year. My cheeks are still a little tingly from the cold.




Sunday, October 07, 2012

The Good Idea That's Not, Really ...

I get into these moods to poke around. Schmy, Doreen would say. These moods are enhanced when I remember that it's 50%-off day at Goodwill.

It's not that I need any more stuff. I surely don't. It's the hunt. But only for objects. Maybe books. Never clothes.

This is not a knock on those who shop Goodwill for clothes. I hate shopping for clothes anywhere. At a TJ Maxx or some such, I note all the women scouring the racks and racks of clothing and I head right for the housewares.

But yesterday, I was at Goodwill. Predictably, as it was 50%-off day, the parking lot was packed. And Goodwill could really do with those cute little handle baskets like at the grocery store because a thrift store on 50%-off day is no place for a cart.

The shelves are crammed with glasses and dishes and tchotchkes and crap, with no rhyme or reason. I sometimes sort things into some sort of order as I go. If I see glasses that match, I group them. It just makes sense. I like things to make sense. You may have noticed.

I make several passes up and down the aisle, looking at one side and then the other. Invariably, I see something on pass two or three that I didn't see the first time around.

And so it was yesterday. I'm always looking for glasses first, so my brain doesn't really register anything else. But on successive passes, I'm more open to other finds.

Such as this number. I fell in love with his color and shape.


And then, stowed away in the non-glassware aisle, was this little guy.

I like using little glasses as votive holders. Especially reeded glass (or does this count as ribbed?) because it throws off interesting patterns from the flickering flames inside.

I have, however, nearly reached the point where I can no longer justify buying any more glasses-cum-votive holders, even on 50%-off day, even when they only cost me 13 cents.

But it's fun to go and look.

So yesterday, my brain said, "Open an Etsy shop!"

Huh. I'd never thought of that before. Yeah, maybe.

I came home and dialed up Etsy. (Dialed? What, like I have a rotary laptop?) And I clicked on "Vintage." "2,598,487 items in Vintage." I narrowed down the search in "Vintage" for "pottery": 40,120.

Yeah, nix the Etsy idea. (Happily, I have a Plan B.)

I went to a second Goodwill store not too far away and once again bypassed all the racks of clothes in favor of the housewares and I turned down an aisle and I must say, I was a bit chagrined. Everything was so organized: all the vases together, all the stemware together, all the plates together. Well, where's the fun in that?!

Yes, I group like glasses together from time to time at my local Goodwill but that's more of a service to fellow shoppers and Goodwill, too. Perhaps someone'll be more inclined to buy a set of something than just a one-off. But who wants things organized to the point of feeling like they're in Target? Not me.

I didn't buy anything at the second Goodwill. I contented myself with the day's two little finds.

My little pottery friend, by the way? He cost a dollar. Don't you just love 50%-off day?

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Turning Over ...

You'll have to forgive me for my sense of right and wrong.

It's making me a bit testy these days.

It's also leaving me at a loss for words.

I'll attempt to find a few of them now.

My brain is trying to wrap itself around the insanity that the Republican nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America stood on a debate stage last night and flat-out lied. Repeatedly. Brazenly. Knowingly.

Of course, Mitt's been lying consistently, so I don't know why I thought last night would be any different. A leopard, after all, cannot change its spots.

But still, I was left sputtering: "But ... but ... but ... ."

But what?

But what, indeed.

What do you do with a candidate who lies with abandon? How do you counteract that?

With facts, one would think.

But no. Facts don't matter to him. In fact, in a moment of exquisite brass-ballsedness last night, Governor Romney told the President that he's not entitled to his own facts.

Um, Mitt?

Mitt?

Mitt, can you hear me?

Mitt, you're the one who has been fact-checked to death in this campaign and proven to be a liar over and over and over again.

Of course, one of your advisors said that your campaign wasn't going to be dictated by fact checkers.

So once again, I don't understand why I should be so stunned by the ease with which you just flung that accusation at President Obama.

Who needs reality when you have millions stashed in the Caymans?

Honestly, I don't think Mitt wants to be the President.

Oh, I think he'd like to win. His ego would definitely like to win.

But I don't think he wants to be bothered with the actual duty of governing.

So being the nominee is enough, really. He can see how this race is going. But damn if he didn't accept his party's nomination and enjoy one hell of a balloon drop.

This is Nate Silver's Now-Cast from the New York Times. If the election were held today, these are the candidates' chances of winning.

You'll note that Mitt is up 0.9%. Without that bump, his number would have been 2.2%. Which means Obama's would have been 97.8%.

Mitt's performance last night won't change those numbers much either way.

But I'd like to think that all of today's reporting about Mitt's voluminous lies should drive his number downward, what little way there is for it to go.

Because, naive as I may be to believe it, it has to matter that a nominee for the Presidency is a bald-faced liar. It has to matter.

It just has to.

And it will.

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

I am desperately, hopelessly, irredeemably biased, but honest to God, I think this man is a genius.

Angelo is in the process of beginning the last stages of creating his store, and tonight, he posted a few images to Twitter and when I opened this one, I gasped.

It's like a present-day, eclectic Renaissance painting. (It may be unintentional but he was a fine-art major.) The light and the dark, the colors, the layers, the intricacy.

I love it. And it's not even done, the space.

I have been privy to a bit of the process and have arrived at awe and admiration.

Not that I didn't admire him already, and not that his designs didn't already inspire awe – that is why we met, after all – but the journey is just so fantastic. (He can tell you a little bit about it here.)

For all of the trials and tribulations and mishaps and red tape, though, the next chapter of his latest adventure is about to begin and I could not be more proud of him.

You can always see his line online and at retail partners, too, but now you'll be able to literally step into his world, comfortable and dramatic and quirky and fun, and realize that you can't afford not to make a part of his line a part of your home because his designs are well-made, affordable, and exactly the little jolt you're needing to make a room come alive.

Angelo truly believes that your space can change your life. It's changed his. It's changing his. Every day.

Stop in sometime. It'll be open soon.

And here's to you, my friend. So, so well done.

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

So, my brain said, "I want tropical punch!"

And I had a packet in the cabinet, so I grabbed it and the canister of sugar and then the pitcher and the Brita from the fridge. (Yes, I keep my empty pitcher in the fridge. There's room and it makes sense.)

(I buy Wyler's, in case anyone is wondering, not Kool-Aid, because that's what we drank when I was a kid. Which I kind of still am.)

And I stirred up a pitcherful of tropical punch and thought, "What am I, 8?"

Yeah, pretty much.

So I figured I may as well go all in on my "What am I, 8?"-ness and use a silly straw.

So I did.

Consider it one of the last hurrahs of summer, with its watermelon hues.