torsdag, februari 10, 2005

[Charles] Middle-aged, Boring, But Finally Happy

So the news is out. Charles and Camilla, moral at last. I was grinning reading the following comments reported by Times Online - Britain:

"'Charles and Camilla don't sell magazines anymore. This is not Brad and Jennifer. They are middle-aged and boring-looking.' - Judy Wade, royal correspondent for Hello! magazine.

'You can't fix a scandal by marrying your mistress.' - Kristel Badenhorft, 22, a student from South Africa outside Buckingham Palace.

'These arrangements have my strong support and are consistent with Church of England guidelines concerning remarriage which the Prince of Wales fully accepts as a committed Anglican and as prospective Supreme Governor of the Church of England.' - Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury.

'It is just a rather crafty way of making it sound different - everyone who marries (a prince or princess) is their consort. There is no more difference in this name than being referred to as 'Mrs Jones', or 'Mrs Jones, the much beloved wife.' - Harold Brooks-Baker of Burke's Peerage on the title HRH Princess Consort.

'There's a danger she could look like the mother of the bride. A discreet set of posies would also help set her apart so she doesn't look like a guest. She's not a bad looking woman. When she smiles her face lights up. She could look incredibly elegant in a full length off white dress.' - Liz Savage, editor of Brides magazine.

'They are clearly very much in love. It must be the end of a series of nightmare years for Camilla, every day reading in the papers about being the mistress this and that. They are entitled to have their own happiness the same as everyone else.' - Winston Churchill, the grandson of Britain's wartime prime minister and a friend of the couple."

I am with you, Winston Churchill. Why are so many people getting so down on this impending wedding, now that it's finally official? Wouldn't we prefer a happy prince to a sad and lonely prince? Well, not the absolutists, but we don't care about that.

We also don't care that it'll probably be carried off cheaply, inexpensively ("vot? half a million pounds? do we ruu-ly need quite so *many* flowers?); or that it'll be understated, certainly, nowhere as grandiose (or gaudy! she sniffs) as Diana's nuptials; not even that it may well play without bridemaids.

But so what? It's time, they're happy,and that's all it matters. "A good cow is a happy cow, and happy cows.." -- oh, Camilla do love those happy cows! I'm just saying!

The dodgy Brit interval that determines the coincidence gate has, as it turned out, been highly adjustable, but finally it synths up for these middle-aged, boringly illicit lovebirds. He seems like a nice but stodgy dude, while she just seems.. um, dude-ish --teehee-- and yes, both of them have been serially guilty of adultery (as have their spouses) spawning a throng of tabloid headlines.

But I do love a good celebration, and when the time comes, may we just --hmm, let it go-- just get carried along and be very pleased to raise a glass and a cheer for the joyful conjunction. "Sound the horns! Bring the hounds! That's right, loveys, and --ooh-- feel up the ol' treasure chest!" Tee-hee, and congratulations to Charles and Camilla.

[Charles] The Bitter Feud of 'Three in A Marriage' News : "When Diana, the late Princess of Wales, was famously said to have referred to Camilla Parker Bowles as "The Rottweiler", it uncovered years of animosity.
Referring to her marriage and Camilla, she said: “Well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.”"

[prediction] "Royal" Racehorse Will Win After Prince Charles' Wedding, By a Fluke

Synchronism becomes headlines: that's my prediction. Anything named "Royal" will become lucky when Charles and Camilla finally get hitched. It couldn't be helped. The scribes will throw around terms like "out of the clear blue sky," "by a fluke," and oh, "as luck would have it..." Of course luck will have it. I'm not being mordant, I simply subscribe to the parallelism of power and fate and peradventure, cosmic harmony stipulated by Ch-- casualty and moira and the ol' kismet. That's all. And if the racehorse has "Royal" in its name, I'm wagering on it to win, that's all. Providence speaks.
. . . A U G U S T . . . A R R I V E D . . . P R E D I C T S . . .

" Bookmakers are expecting a host of coincidence bets on John Smith's Grand National day which takes place on April 9 - just 24 hours after the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Ladbrokes are quoting a special price of 10-1 that a horse with Royal in its name wins the Aintree spectacular.
'There have been three 'royal' winners in the past, most recently Royal Athlete in 1995, and with Clan Royal heading the market the nation could be set for a princely pay-out,' said Balthazar Fabricius of Ladbrokes.
William Hill, who have Clan Royal as their 11-1 favourite for the big race, offer 20-1 that Prince Charles gives Parker-Bowles a racehorse as a wedding gift."

[law] How Appealing to Bite Cha Back, or, Pledge Thy Allegiance to Charlton Heston

AP Wire | 02/09/2005 | Appeals court sued over seal: "SAN FRANCISCO - The federal appeals court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion is being sued for allegedly displaying the Ten Commandments on its seal and courthouses.

The case was brought by Pleasanton attorney Ryan Donlon, who was admitted to practice before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June. In his lawsuit against the San Francisco-based court, he said the certificate admitting him contains the court's seal which unlawfully contains what he believes is a tablet object that "represents the Judeo-Christian Decalogue commonly referred to as the Ten Commandments."

Cathy Catterson, the court's clerk, said the seal highlights a woman, known as "the Majesty of the Law" who is reading a large book. At her feet is a tablet with 10 unreadable lines on it, what Donlon believes is the Ten Commandments.

Catterson said the tablet has "the same shape" of the Ten Commandments but "you can't read the text of it."

The case is Donlon v. United States, 05-0536.

[law] So Devilish This Sticky Issue

Clovis News Journal: "Stickers on a Clovis man's car portray cartoon images of bare-breasted female devils in sexually compromising positions. And the images have caught the attention of Clovis police.

Officials have charged 31-year-old Dean Young, the owner of a yellow Ford Focus displaying the images, with distribution of sexually oriented materials to minors. The charge is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum punishment of 364 days in jail and $1,000 fine. Young is scheduled to appear in magistrate court on the charges in the next few weeks.

Young in turn has notified the American Civil Liberties Union, which is considering representing Young; an ACLU spokesman said Young's First Amendment rights may have been violated. "

[int'l pol.] So Okay, No Touch Iraq, But Do Touch Saudi? Sticky Wickets!

From Maureen Dowd's column in today's NYT: "In our ally Saudi Arabia's first nationwide elections for municipal councils today, women have been banned from voting or running.

The Saudis, who obviously picked up a few tips from the Bushies about how to suppress the vote, claimed that they didn't have enough voting booths for women.

But the Saudi columnist Badriyah al-Bisher was quoted by The A.P. as saying that the elections were reminiscent of the time the first President George Bush did not step in when Saudi women made a spirited effort to drive, after female American soldiers arrived for Desert Shield. The women drivers were slapped down, insulted and ostracized for the next decade.

'We've been dumped in the back seat again,' she said, 'and only a man is allowed to drive us.' "

So let's get our story straight, Ms. Dowd: we shouldn't touch the Iraqis, but should the Saudis? Some consistency, please. (I know, sticky problem.)

[anecdote] Faultlessly Clear "Dream," in Altered State

I saw this item from The Corner on National Review Online picked up by with its typically snarky note, and originally posted it here with my own snark, something like "[drugs] A Perfectly Cautionary Tale to 'Just Say No,'" but realized on second thought: No, that's the wrong take for me; I need to avoid the snark. Hence my revised gentler, kinder headline above. This anecdote-confession --so droll, so faultlessly clear-- is by National Review columnist John Derbyshire, writing on Don & Phil Everly (and what else was beautiful besides their "Cathy's Clown"):

"The Everly Brothers, in fact, though I think superbly gifted, have an uncomfortable place in my consciousness. Way back in my wasted youth I did, like all the rest of you, a lot of seriously foolish things. One thing I did was mess around with... substances. Well, this included an acid phase. One day I took far too much of the stuff and went into a very peculiar state. One feature of it was that it had a **sound track**; and the main thing I remember about the sound track was Don & Phil singing 'Dream.' The creepy thing was the ABSOLUTELY PERFECT quality of the recording (all this inside my head, of course). It was as faultlessly clear -- every word, every note -- as if they were there in the room with me. And it was on a loop, over and over.

I have never felt the same about the Everlies since. Why that particular song came to me in that particular state, I have no idea." (Posted at 11:24 AM, Wed 2/9/5)

tisdag, februari 08, 2005

[apology] How to Wait Out My Inner Lara

My apologies for not making a single bloody post this week. I've been under the weather of late, and feeling sleepy, short-lived, and loonier than a Lara Flynn Boyle on a translatlantic flight, if that's even possible. Gladdened only by these weird search-engine queries that land the random visitor here ("Johnny Carson racist clips"? "cate blanchett nipple slips"? who wrote mcdonald's theme ba da ba ba ba? At least there's waht are two important roles of plankton -- that'll get you SpongeBob SquarePants' spongy asexuality, heehee. And documentary feature winner prediction 77th academy awards --sorry I couldn't be more helpful; I'll try to see them when available here.) Hopefully I'll be posting again by the end of this Rooster Week (Hey, Chinese New Year 4703!), and that patient readers will return. Thank you.

August Arrived shall be back by the end of week. Thank you for your patience.