Lucy Blue is Born

I'm about a week overdue in posting about the photo shoot!  Bad me!

I don't really have much to say about it in all honesty...it went about like I thought it would, except is was more fun and much easier than I thought it would be.  The photographer did a great job dealing with a novice like me, and made me feel comfortable and provided excellent coaching with the poses.  Getting my hair and makeup done was pretty cool, too.  Kind of made me feel like a celebrity!  :)  I've never had my hair or makeup done for anything before.  I always did my own for prom, our wedding and every other "special event," but I knew I wasn't ready to do it for a photo shoot and have it look right, anyway.

Because it went so well, and I had such a good time, I've already booked another shoot and plan to do some more, possibly with a few different photographers (since I know so many!) and see what different outcomes and products I can produce in different environments and with different people behind the camera.  I know I won't ever become a "professional" model of any kind, but I enjoy working around the cars and being creative with them in my own way.  It is a style I've always been into, and something that is great to do for myself.  It will be nice to have a small collection of cute photographs to look back on when I'm old and decrepit.  :)

It would be cool to get published eventually, even if only once, but I'm not setting my sights that high just yet.  For the next shoot I'm going to attempt my own hair and makeup just for the hell of it.  I've been playing around with it at home some, and think I have a handle on what needs to be done to make it look right on camera.  I think everyone should have professional photographs taken at some point in their lives, besides a wedding, etc... and I'm not really the kind of person to just put on a white shirt and khakis and do a contrived pose under a tree.  If that's your thing, its totally cool, I'm not knocking it in any way, but that doesn't capture the essence of who I am...and that's the whole point of photography anyway.

Here are a few shots:

Product Review: Sally Hansen Home Waxing Kits

I have really sensitive skin that doesn't appreciate shaving.  I sucked it up before our beach trip last year and went and had a bikini wax.  I had been getting my brows done for years, and even though the first time is a little shocking, it got easier the more frequently I went.  The experience with the brows does not translate to the bikini line.  At least not in relation to making it any less excruciating the first time.  Before our beach trip this year I went back, and it was not as bad as before.  What is bad is the price.  I'm not going just anywhere to have it done, and not all salons that offer waxing do bikini waxes, so I've been going to a place in Green Hills that charges $90.  That's well worth avoiding the pain of shaving, but its not necessarily affordable, particularly on our budget.

After watching several episodes of "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and "Kourtney and Khloe Take Miami" where Kourtney either waxes herself or someone else I figured if she can do it, I can do it.  I looked around online, but wasn't interested in spending $50+ on a kit, because they only have enough wax for one application and at that point I might as well just go have it done.  I wanted to seriously save money.  Even at the expense of it possibly being more painful.

I went to Walgreens and found the Sally Hansen Honey Wax kit.  I had read online to avoid heated waxes if you don't know what you are doing and don't have a wax warmer.  I came home and got to work, and while it wasn't more painful it also wasn't effective.  The wax is more like goo.  It doesn't stick to your skin, as promised, but it also doesn't stick to the hair or the strips.  You pull off about half the goo on the strip, leaving the rest on your skin, and remove about 3 hairs per pull.  Nope.

I went to Walgreens again and got the Sally Hansen pre-waxed strips.  Now, those worked.  The wax does not stick to the skin, it does stick to the hair, and it removes a good 90-95% of the hair on the first pull.  It actually seems less painful when I do it to myself because I am free to curse under my breath, prepare myself for each pull and take a deep breath, and because I can take my time between each strip.  However, I want to wax my legs, too, and those strips are not big enough nor plentiful enough to do both legs without spending a ton of money.  But if you just want to do brows, underarms and bikini line I recommend the strips for sure.  They are under $10 a box and work really well.  Learning to pull them off properly isn't as difficult as I imagined, because if you pull one off incorrectly once, believe me, you won't make the same mistake again.  you learn quickly under those circumstances!    

Hockey Thoughts: O'Captain, Bye Captain!

I have a whole host of things to blog about today, and might not get to them all, so I felt it was appropriate to start the day with the biggest of news...yesterday the Preds traded Captain Jason Arnott to the New Jersey Devils and Dan Hamhuis to the Philadelphia Flyers.  (Thus making the Flyers even more so the "used to be Preds.")  While I am not sad to see either go, I am slightly more upset over Arnott than Hamhuis and I'm sure this runs contrary to the feelings of 99.9% of Preds fans out there today.

It became clear mid-way through the season that something was up with Arnott.  I started to get suspicious that he would be gone at the trade deadline but then his attitude seemed to improve and his play got better so I attributed his mid-season slump to his general moodiness.  I've never seen a hockey player who is so "delicate" in his mood swings as Arnott.  I never liked him as Captain, and this season I was 100% in favor of demoting him from that position.  Even though he seems to get angry from time to time, his on-ice attitude is typically very laxidasical and I never saw any evidence of real leadership come from him.  Overall he was inconsistent and remains one head injury away from retirement.  When he was on, though, he was on and could score, be in the right places at the right times and lay out some killer hits.  Too bad that was only a few games a year.  I didn't necessarily want to see him go, but he was one of the highest paid players on the team and didn't deserve a contract extension--something he basically demanded at the end of this season.  In a way, he's turning into Brett Favre, not wanting to admit his best playing days are behind him and looking into the best escape route/retirement plan.  He obviously wants to keep playing so he's going to have to do that elsewhere.  I would have been more in favor of clearing cap space by trading Legwand, and keeping Arnott for the remaining year on his contract, without an extension and without him wearing the C on his jersey.  But if he was going to be unhappy with that deal in any way, which he was, then its best he move on.  Bye Jason, we loved you while we had you, until this year when most people (but not me) started to hate you. 

As for Hamhuis, I also thought he was leaving at the deadline, particularly once I figured out Arnott was not.  I'm assuming, although I have no corroborating evidence, that he did not get dealt because his price is too high.  He stated he was "looking forward" to free agency in a few days, I'm assuming because he thinks he should be paid more than he is now and Nashville would have ever given him.  Good luck.  If that were the case, he'd have been skating in someone else's jersey since February.  Nashville got one of their mistake trade players back (aka good prospects we lost to get Forsberg), and they don't have to deal with any more hassles regarding offers approaching July 1.  Now that's Philly's mess to contend with.  Even though most Preds fans think he's a solid D-Man, I disagree.  Between him and Klein (who we have for two more years, gross) it is hard to say who was the weakest link on our D-Line.  I'm going with Hamhuis, because at least Klein has inexperience to blame, and when the two were paired together it was like watching Looney Toons on Ice out there.  Hamhuis used to be good, so I don't know whether to blame him or the coaching (very likely that), but he's not the player he was two, or even one, season ago.  Stupid mistakes, scoring on our own goalie once (blatantly) and two or three times (probably) does not a good defenseman make!  He might have been trying too hard to prove his value this year, going into Free Agency, but he failed miserably and should have just stuck to his game.  I am not, in the least, sad to see him go.  Bye Dan, so long, good riddance.  The only thing that sucks there is it makes it harder to root for the "Used to be Preds," because at least I like the other former-Preds players on Philly, and I do not like him.

Aside from what the Preds will be paying the two guys they picked up in the trades, which given their experience, shouldn't be too much between the two, they cleared out at least $6 million in salary space, more than enough to bring in a solid scorer.  Maybe having someone who actually scores on the reg will push Legwand back to his A-game.  He's tended to score more when he has serious competition on the team, which he lacked severely this season (and he had the worst numbers of his career). 

As for who should be Captain, my first impulse is Sully.  He's been around, he's paid his dues, and he's certainly a veteran and has the necessary personal qualities to be a good Captain.  The team is obviously going in a different direction, towards youth and away from experience, but that is just one more reason to allow the remaining team veteran to wear the C.  Besides, this is likely Sully's last year on the team, and in hockey period, so he would be Captain for just this season then they could turn it over to one of the young bucks, which seems to be the Captain trend du jour since Crosby was handed the reigns three years ago in Pittsburgh.  I had a brief moment last night where I preferred Weber to Sully, but Weber can step up when Sully's done.  My vote is with Sully 100%, but I will not be surprised if it is Weber.  I don't think there's anyone else on the team that they would even be considering, so I'm not even going to discuss any other players as possibilities.

Now I need to spend the next few days looking at the list of potential free agent scorers that will probably hit the market and take some guesses as to where that $6 million will be spent.

Tony Hayward Is My New Hero

I only caught a little bit of Tony Hayward's testimony before Congress today, but I was overfed the "highlights" while listening to the news on the way home tonight.  At first Rep. Joe Barton was my hero for apologizing to Tony Hayward, but then after getting pressured by House Republican Leadership he retracted his apology and went from hero to supreme loser in 0.5 seconds flat.  Way to have some integrity dude, seriously.

While I'm fully aware that it goes against every concept of "open government," I believe that Congressional Committee Hearings should be closed to the press.  At least as far as live video and audio are concerned.  They should still be open to the public and members of the media who wish to take notes.  But broadcasting Committee Hearings live on national TV has done nothing but completely annihilate the purpose of the hearings in the first place.  These hearings took place, and presumably accomplished things, long before the era of radio then TV.  I was completely dumbfounded when I visited the House Chamber for the first time.  There was a Congressman making a speech on the floor, with charts and visual aids.  To an empty room.  The only other people present were about ten tourists and the CSPAN camera.  When you watch CSPAN you assume the Congresspeople are making their speech to a room full of other Congresspeople, but that is almost never the case.  They stand there and talk to an empty room with all the fire and passion and drama you see on TV.  Anywhere else that scene took place people would call the individual certifiably insane.

But so much of what takes place now is playacting and grandstanding.  It clearly isn't to get to the bottom of things, to investigate and render findings.  The Representatives spend more time sharing their own feelings and thoughts than they do questioning the individual before them that its usually not even clear why that person has to be there at all.  Congressional Hearings are now the modern representation of the gallows of yesteryear, where a prominent individual related to the political scandal du jour is paraded before the public and lectured like an insolent child.

A surprising number of Representatives list "business" as their occupation outside of Congress, however that can cover a range of activities, not many being equivalent to CEO of a large, multi-billion dollar, international company.  Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure any members of the House of Representatives have equivalent experience.  That was painfully apparent in today's hearing.  It was not clear at times whether the Representatives asking questions were honestly that clueless, or were just acting for the cameras.

But did they truly expect the CEO of a company with thousands of employees and operations on every continent of the globe to be privy to e-mails between engineers working on one specific project?  When Hayward attempted to explain by telling a Congressman that BP drills over 100 wells a year he was interrupted for a smart-ass remark by the Congressman stating that was exactly what was bothering him rather than acknowledging that the CEO is not involved in the engineering details of each and every project his company undertakes, particularly when he is not an engineer and they manage over 100 such projects annually.

Hayward was all but called a liar when he declined to answer technical questions about the well's engineering.  His reasoning was that he was not qualified to comment on those matters and he needed to see the conclusions of the ongoing investigations before he could comment.  He kept his composure when he was chastised for not having those investigations completed yet, after two months, even though the vast majority of HIS time has been in damage control and trying to figure out how to mitigate the current crisis--the leak itself.  This from a body that sometimes takes YEARS to complete investigations and studies on the most mundane and ridiculous of matters.  Rather than recognize the need for thoroughness in the investigations, they scoffed at the speed of their work and implied Hayward should be current on all the details and data before the work is completed, despite his lack of qualifications in independently interpreting such data.

Finally, they called Hayward a coward, in so many words, for failing to answer many questions posed to him.  They each tried to ask the same questions over and over, in different words, with varying degrees of anger and frustration.  Because Lord knows when a Congressman is confronted with a scandal they just come right on out and answer straight up and honest, giving the public 100% of the information they deserve.  Why should he answer questions for which he does not know the answer?  And why should he answer questions which could come back to bite him in the ass if criminal charges are filed, which the Administration has already said they are planning to file?  Get real people.  How many times did Reagan or Clinton "not recall" certain things when they were compelled to testify?

Still, Hayward kept his composure and stayed perfectly clam--something I would have never been able to do.  Not while being lectured like a child by that bunch of hypocrites.  He deserved the apology Rep. Barton gave him and he deserves another after the treatment he received today.  As I said in the previous post on this subject, BP is 100% at fault for this disaster, but Tony Hayward is NOT BP.  He is the CEO, which means he manages the company as a whole, from 10,000 feet.  He is not involved in the day-to-day operations, he is not involved in engineering decisions or planning, or rig testing, or disaster planning--none of that.  Nor should he be!  That is not the CEO's job.  But as the CEO he is the public face of the company, so today he had to endure the public shaming by Congress that is now required by our culture whenever something goes wrong, no matter what it is.  And he endured it with grace and class and with complete professionalism.  So, now he's my hero.  Let's stop dissecting his every word, facial expression and breath and let the man go back to work.  He paid his dues.  Do they not realize that no matter what he's done up to this point, or will ever do in the future, his name will forever be associated with this spill and his lasting legacy in the history books one of complete and utter failure.  All for something that is not his fault.

Nothing new was learned today.  Nothing in that hearing got us any closer to having the leak capped, the mess cleaned up or to preventing a future disaster like this one.  To me, Congress made one big ass of itself and Hayward came out looking like the sympathetic character, the victim.  Everyone has jumped in the pit to maul Hayward, and this debacle will certainly kill him professionally, but if they aren't careful they will all come out bloody and no one will escape unscathed.

Won't You BP My Neighbor?

For the last 6 weeks or however long it has been since the oil leak in the gulf began, my feelings were basically summed up in one sentence, "That's bad, someone should really do something about that."  I admit I didn't know much about it for a few weeks because I had alot going on and the news wasn't talking about it constantly.  Since then the coverage has been ramped up to basically 24-7-365 and I think I've formed an opinion about it, somewhat.


First of all, the only party responsible is BP.  they would like to blame Halliburton and the other contractors who built the rig, but I am not letting that slide.  As a business owner who uses subcontractors I know that it is our job to vet those companies and individuals because ultimately the finished product either belongs to us or has our name on it.  BP was the one paying to build the rig therefore any problems with the construction or design is solely their responsibility, unless the contractors hid crucial information from them, which at this point does not appear to be the case. 


The government only bears any responsibility if there were regulatory provisions "relaxed" or ignored, or inspections that did not meet the regulatory standards.  There also appears to be a little of this in the mix, but beyond this limited area of responsibility, what BP did or did not do is not the government's problem or responsibility.  Regulations are *supposed* to be in place to protect those individuals outside the metaphorical area of self-interest to the company or industry in question.  In this case that would be the employees on the rig who were not qualified or informed enough to know about any engineering problems with the rig.  It also applies to any and all people living on or near the coast who make their livings off of a clean and healthy ocean.  In a broader sense it should include all Americans because territorial waters belong collectively to the people of the United States. 


what regulations are NOT supposed to do is protect companies from themselves.  This is a common misconception, that is now invading all areas of our economic system, from the bailouts to financial reform to healthcare and now energy.  Companies have the ultimate incentive to perform well, not have massive, costly accidents and to keep press coverage of their company positive.  It is called survival.  And profits.  Take for example the recent floods in Nashville.  Had the floods wiped out our business I would have been heartbroken for the customers who lost their vehicles.  However, my main concern and fear was for our business because losing those vehicles means nothing to me personally, to be blunt, but it means everything to the survival or death of our business.  I have every incentive to make sure that our employees are trustworthy individuals with character because if they steal from a customer or us, or damage a customer's vehicle, it harms my business.  Period. 


BP wants this oil leak to stop more than anyone, believe me.  Oil is natural, and despite the damage it is causing to the environment at the moment, and for a few years to come, it will be cleaned up and what is not will resolve itself.  There are multiple scientific studies that show this to be the case.  In time the Gulf Coast will return to normal and the people living there will move forward or move on.  Such is life.  Now we are discussing an end to drilling in the Gulf or any other territorial waters and even on land.  We are talking about massive new taxes and volumes of new regulations on the oil companies.  The effects on BP will be worse and longer lasting than any effects to the environment or the residents of the Gulf Coast.  That is a fact.  BP wants this to stop.  If they had any way to stop it, they would have by now. 


That brings me back to my first point that the only responsible party here is BP.  It is abundantly clear today that they never had even a Plan A for this situation, let alone a Plan B or C.  Again, in my experience as a business owner I recognize that it is completely impossible to imagine every single scenario that could go wrong and have a plan for dealing with it.  Some things are simply unprecedented--just like the flood was here.  It had never crossed our minds to even consider what we would do in that circumstance because it never seemed like a credible threat.  However, for the rig to become damaged in some way causing oil to leak should have been the number one scenario BP should have had a plan for.  Duh.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist, or in this case a geological engineer, to figure that one out.


It is true that this is unprecedented in size.  It is true that it is unprecedented in the fact that it is the deepest underwater rig ever built.  But BP should have anticipated that a deepwater rig would pose new challenges should something go wrong and they should have had a plan.  I don't mean that from a Big Brother telling you what to do standpoint, I mean it from a smart business point of view.  BP made a terrible, stupid, bonehead, rookie business mistake and that is unforgivable from any point of view.


I don't believe the government has any responsibility in this other than ensuring BP does not shirk its responsibility to compensate the victims and clean up this mess as best they can.  I don't even think that new regulation is needed, but of course its coming down the pipeline--no pun intended.  I'm no expert on federal regulations regarding deepwater drilling, but if there is not a provision that requires companies to submit TESTED and PROVEN disaster plans then that should be enacted.  Beyond that, what we had was good enough, it just wasn't enforced.  It doesn't take new laws to enforce the old ones that we had right in the first place.  Part of the reason laws don't get enforced is because we have literally hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pages of federal regulation.  Has anyone ever looked at the Federal Register where proposed regulatory changes are published for the required time before being acted upon?  Probably not many of you, if any.  I have, and just a single page will simultaneously make you want to stab your eyes out, pull your hair out, fall asleep and go on a homicidal rampage.  If you think I'm joking, go read a page.  Then go see just how many pages of that exist.  You can call me from your jail cell and I'll post bail since I told you to look at it.


In conclusion, I don't want President Obama to do anything except shut the hell up.  I don't want him kicking any asses and I don't want him telling me it will all be OK.  I want the executives of BP to shut the hell up, stop pointing fingers and making excuses and get the shit fixed.  And I want them to cop to the terrible management of their business that led to this incident.  Accidents of this magnitude are not the norm, and they should not be held out as the rule, but the exception to it.  We can learn from it and we can proceed with caution, but to halt all progress or forward movement because of one accident is childish, ignorant and reactionary.  Do we stop driving all cars each time there is an auto accident, and wait until we have all the answers as to what caused the crash and determine if cars are generally safe before we allow everyone to start driving again?  No, we do not.  Finally, I want the people of the Gulf Coast to suck it up and admit that there are risks associated to living on the coast, this being one of them, among millions more that are mostly beyond man's control.  We all make choices, good and bad, and then we face the consequences of those choices like grown ups.  Or at least that's the way it should be. 

Off To The Races!

I had never been to any type of race before I met Kirby.  When we went to visit his brother in Gillette, WY he took me to my first dirt track race.  His brother letters race cars out there, and does the majority of them at that track.  I was really not that excited because I despised car racing.  I hate watching it on TV.  It is sort of like watching fish in a tiny tank swim from one side to the other and back, except watching fish can be sort of relaxing and sometimes they do something slightly funny or entertaining.  Worst case scenario you can laugh when they poop and swim around with a long turd hanging off their stomachs.  

Dirt track racing is totally different than NASCAR, though, and I ended up really liking it.  Because we were there with his brother, who had to work on some of the cars, we got pit passes and that was particularly cool for a first timer like me.  The cars are SUPER loud up close and the guys (and gals) that drive them are mostly really cool.  The tracks are shorter which makes for more entertainment value because most of the interesting action happens in the turns.  The races are also shorter, so you only have to be into it for a little while, whereas some NASCAR races take the entire afternoon or more.  The skill level of the drivers also varies widely.  There are some guys who aren't very good and/or are just starting out and there are others that totally kick ass.  You can usually tell who's new or who sucks because they don't have many or any sponsors on their cars.  One race we went to last year a guy literally had nothing on his car but his number, and it was taped on the door in duct tape.  I kid you not.  And he sucked big time.  But I was rooting for him because I felt bad for the guy, but as could be expected he came in last.  I just wanted him to hear one person cheering for him in the stands!  Finally, there are more wrecks due to all of the above factors.  Smaller track, shorter races and varying skill levels lead to lots of wrecks.  We've seen cars pile into each other, drive on top of each other, catch on fire, flip on their roofs, go up on top of the retaining wall and get stuck there, go over the retaining wall and down the track side, drive shafts fly out from under the car, you name it!  NASCAR has gnarly wrecks because of the speed the cars are traveling, but they tend to be pretty run of the mill.  The cars are designed to withstand high speed impacts without doing too much damage or flipping, etc...and cost about a million bucks to build.  Therefore they are built to not get all kinds of tore up when they do wreck.  Usually about half the field is eliminated by the mid-point of the race and then there's some good racing the rest of the way because the track opens up, very similar to 4 on 4 hockey.

I also like it because its really personal.  All of the tracks are in areas where its a big deal, of course.  So alot of the fans are really into it because they know one or more of the drivers.  There's always a couple groups of girls wearing homemade shirts supporting this or that driver.  In the areas where its a really big deal, and the population is a bit more affluent like Gillette, they have professionally made shirts, jackets and hats supporting their favorite driver.  I have a hoodie that Kirby's brother makes and sells that has all of the numbers of the cars he letters on the back with his company logo on the front, and its actually really cool and no one else in Nashville has one!

Plus, the drivers at this level are really only doing it for bragging rights and possibly a small cash prize at the end of the season (or in the occasional cash prize races scattered through the season).  The money won isn't even enough to begin to cover the costs of operating one of these cars, so its more the pride in winning than a financial necessity, anyway.  At least professional drivers still get paid even if they lose, and make money off sponsorships and appearances.  You still need to win to make decent money since no one wants a loser to be in their TV commercials or to come speak to their business conference.  But the money is there pretty much regardless, so its easier for those guys to be laid back about it, even when they have a terrible day.  They walk away from the race car regardless of its condition, go get into their luxury buses, ride home to their mansions and get in bed with their supermodel-hot wives.  A crew paid by someone else gets the car ready for the next race and its magically at the track in peak condition the following week.  In dirt track, every time, there's someone who gets super pissed and either tries to fight another driver or pitches some kind of hissy fit on the track.  Again, its kind of like hockey in that way.  But for the dirt track driver with the blown engine or trashed car, that's a big expensive mess that has to be fixed, usually by them and their friends, usually with their own money, in one week so they can be back on the track the next Saturday night.  They load their own car onto their own trailer and haul it back home to figure out what needs to be done.  

Dirt track racing is, to me anyway, the hockey of the motorsports world.  There's more car to car contact, as well, in dirt track than typical NASCAR and certainly drags.  If I can make something like hockey then I can find a way to enjoy it!  Of course there's always good people watching at dirt track races, too.  I'm sure there is at NASCAR races, as I can tell from the pictures I have seen when my Dad has gone to one.  But the rural people that go to the dirt track every Saturday night all summer long are another breed entirely.  I'm not judging or being mean here, I'm just stating the facts as I see them.  Its as much entertainment for me to go and watch them in their "natural habitat" as it would be entertainment for them to go to NYC and be baffled at all the city folk.  And as far as "city girls" go, I'm still fairly countrified but I don't see that kind of people on a daily basis.  I do need to be more careful in what I wear from now on, though.  All the other races I've been to have been in cooler weather, and the track always seems windier and colder than outside the track area, so I've just worn jeans and a hoodie.  Last night it was 90 degrees at sunset, and I wore a black sundress with flowers on it and black sandals.  I thought that was very casual, and I always wear dresses when its hot because I don't really "do" shorts.  I was wrong.  I stuck out like a sore thumb and had people staring at me all night.  Not cool.

It is also fun because the majority of NASCAR drivers got their start in this type of racing.  Unless you have a bit of money at your disposal to start with, you work your way up through the lesser dirt track classes like Pro Stock, Modified, etc... to Late Model.  If you are a good Late Model driver you will get some financial backing and can race outside your normal area, getting on some national tours and getting recognized by the racing "big wigs" and hopefully offered a spot on a Nationwide team, and if you're any good there, eventually a Sprint team.  I'm not generally a fan of amateur sports at all, but when it comes to amateur racing, you get way more for your money.  Up and coming Late Model drivers can hook the corners like mad, and watching those cars go one, even two, wheels up around those corners is exciting.  Watching the good drivers narrowly avoid wrecks, practically pushing people in front of them to get an opportunity to pass, and even drive a badly damaged car is sweet entertainment.  At one race we saw a car get smacked on the left front wheel and it was obvious the suspension was badly damaged because the tire was basically laying horizontal in the wheel well.  Typically they will make a car in that condition leave the track because it is dangerous to the other drivers, but for whatever reason they let that guy keep going and he drove that car all the way to the end with that wheel lifted off the ground, and then he won the freakin' race!  That takes wicked skill and ability to be able to maintain the speed and steering to keep that wheel up on the straightaways, not to mention still beat everyone else.

Aside from dirt track, I can kind of appreciate drag racing.  The best part for me is that the individual races are short, but it sort of sucks because they go all day.  The only professional drags I've been to were in Memphis in August and it was hot as balls.  I think I would enjoy it better if it were in cooler weather.  The races can almost be too short, on the other hand, and if you aren't paying attention you can miss the action entirely.  This was exacerbated last year by the shortened tracks due to the one driver's death after his chute didn't deploy and he crashed into a wall past the end of the track.  I don't follow racing enough to know if they have changed that back or not.  

I don't like the motorcycle drags and I'm not really sure why, but I think the wheelie bar on the back has something to do with it.  I know it is necessary, but it bothers me for some reason.  I do like the Funny Cars and Pro Stock dragsters, and I actually prefer it when one of the cars has some issue off the start.  Nose to nose finishes aren't as exciting to me.  They finish the strip in like 3 seconds, going 300+ miles per hour, but when someone has an issue off the start its funny while also making you sympathetic with the driver because its like, "aw damn!"  Those cars are supposed to be at peak performance, but with that much horsepower and that level of fuel sometimes shit just goes wrong.  And so long as no one gets hurt it is pretty cool when one just blows the hell up at the start!

I'm looking forward to next month when I get to attend my first "Nostalgia Drag" which consists of classic cars set up to drag race.  They won't be as fast as the pro drags, not even close, but it is the history of drag racing and in that regard I'm very intrigued.  Most people don't know but NHRA (the pro drags) stands for "National Hot Rod Association" because in the beginning it was just guys racing their hot rods, and has since evolved into something quite beyond that.  So, Nostalgia Drags is the roots of drag racing and in a way the "real deal."  Just as NASCAR stands for "National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing" and began with, literally, stock cars.  Bootleggers modified stock cars to be lighter and have more horsepower, in addition to hidden compartments in which to hide the booze, so that they would look like a regular car to a cop but in the event of a chase they could outrun them.  They began racing these modified stock cars and NASCAR was born.  This is also why each model of race car has to be a model sold by the manufacturer, even though today's race cars are not in any way, shape or form a stock car off a lot and the bodies aren't even real car bodies.  They just generally look like the vehicle they are supposed to be, but up until the last few decades they were literally stock vehicles that were mass produced (like the Dodge Daytona), but modified for race performance.

The only other race I've been to was a Nationwide Series race at Nashville Superspeedway last summer.  It was an awesome experience in that we went with a friend, who was there with the family and friends of a driver.  They had traveled over in a top-notch RV, and got to park along the far wall opposite the grandstands.  We had food, beer, TV's outside tuned to the race broadcast and a bathroom all to ourselves, not to mention we were literally right up on the track.  I didn't get into the race all that much, but the atmosphere where we were helped me be as festive as I could be.  I was just blown away by how fast those suckers are driving--its a hell of alot faster in person than it looks on TV.  And significantly louder!  I couldn't look at the cars coming or going because it made me dizzy as all get out.  It was cool for me, too, because Kyle Bush won the race and he and his brother Kurt Bush are my favorite drivers, mostly because every NASCAR fan in the universe hates them and in racing I like the underdogs.  Kurt also started out driving the Sharpie car and I like Sharpies.  Simple as that.  (And yes, even though I don't watch or follow NASCAR I have a favorite driver because you can't live in the South and not have a favorite NASCAR driver.  It is simply not allowed, even if you hate NASCAR.)  I'm fairly certain I wouldn't enjoy a NASCAR race sitting in the grandstands with everyone else, though.  If I can't watch in VIP Style, I'd rather stay home!  I fell asleep trying to watch the Daytona 500 with him on TV, two years in a row!

But here I am, turning into a race fan of sorts, which I thought would never happen.  I hope to one day get Kirby into football a little more as a tradeoff for my attempts at enjoying racing.  Although racing is predominantly a Southern thing, it is popular all over the country and he grew up with it.  So it is somewhat odd that his Southern wife hated racing until he came around.  Whereas he grew up without any serious exposure to the #1 sport of the South: football.  He's already adopted many of our customs and ways of life after 10 years down here, so I'm hoping in 10 more I can have him screaming at the TV with me watching football like we do with hockey now!  If I'm really lucky I'll have him screaming in a Southern accent!  :P

***If you are in any way interested in crazy people and ridiculous racing, I highly recommend the following documentary.  Its not dirt track, but its very similar just on a paved track.  One day soon we will be visiting the track in Anderson and watching these guys.  They are GREAT!!!

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/dirty-driving-thundercars-of-indiana/index.html

My First Quaker Meeting

I just returned home after attending my first Quaker Meeting.  I had planned to start in May, but the schedule at the shop was just too hectic.  Then I needed a weekend to recover, we were in Knoxville the next, and so today was my first free Sunday where I didn't have an overwhelming need to sleep all day.  Unfortunately I won't be able to go back until July because we are out of town next weekend for a car show, then the following Sunday is the last day for the Preacher at my parents' church, who married me and Kirby (and provided invaluable counsel on marriage), and I would like to attend to say goodbye--to her, and that church.  Not that I will NEVER attend that church again, but I do hope to formally join the Quaker Meeting when the time is right.

Honestly, I was really nervous and almost backed out at the last minute this morning.  Even as I was getting ready to turn down the street the building is on, I almost turned around.  I'm not good at attending things where I don't know anyone, particularly alone, but I had been planning this for weeks and assured myself it would be a welcoming community, and one that would be accepting of visitors at that.  I was right.  I had been worried that people would ask me alot of questions or be very pushy about continuing to attend, as has been my experience at pretty much every other Nashville church I've ever attended.  Its like they want to stake a claim on the new person and lock them into becoming members of that church come hell or high water.  I have even had strangers or people I just met ask me if I attend a church and when I answer "no" then they begin the sales pitch for their church immediately.  That was not the experience I wanted, and it was not the experience I had.  The entire mood of the people and building once inside is simply peace.

It is a very small building, and I entered and made my way into the Meeting Room, stopping for a second at the door to compose myself.  It is a big open room with hardwood floors, a pew up against the far wall and folding chairs arranged in a semi-circle facing the wall with pews.  There were lots of big, tall windows letting in an abundance of sunlight and trees stood outside most of the windows making a nice view, consdering everything surrounding the building is somewhat worn down and dilapidated.

At first at was a little awkward, but as more people came into the Meeting Room it started to feel more normal.  There were about 15 people there besides me, but apparently half the congregation went to the Yearly Meeting this week, so I'm assuming they normally have about 30 or so attendees.  About 2/3 were between the ages of 40-60, the other 1/3 were younger, around my age.  The hour actually seemed to go by really fast, which was surprising, because I thought sitting in silence for an hour would feel like forever, particularly my first time.  I admit I didn't really feel much of The Light this time because I was still a bit nervous, unsettled and taking it all in.  I did try and focus, though, and had some feelings that I'm sure were The Light.  After I left I did feel refreshed and like the time was well spent.  I think it will be very useful to have that hour of peaceful oasis every week.

I guess you could sum up my Leading (an inner sense that God is calling us to take a particular course of action) from today as "Go into the world."  I finally crossed the last major threshold in my exploration of Quakerism and once some of the nervousness subsided I just felt happy and content.  I felt like I had made the right decision to go to Meeting, and I could finally answer in the affirmative that I attend Meeting when people ask, "So, you're a Quaker but you've never been to Quaker church?"  And I can explain what it is like from experience, not just describe what I have read about Meetings.  There was a feeling of shared purpose in the room, even though I was new and everyone in the room was technically a stranger to me. 

At the end of Meeting the appointed leader shakes hands with the person next to him or her, and that continues around the room.  Then they go around the room and introduce themselves and if they had a Leading worth sharing, they share at that time.  I introduced myself last, said that I was obviously new and thanked everyone for making me feel welcome, which they had even though I had not yet spoken to anyone.  Afterword, a couple of the younger people came up and intoduced themsleves individually.  One girl was also new, this being her second Meeting.  Another couple had been attending for a few months and planned to get married there in August.  They were very nice and friendly, and excited to have another new, younger attendee.  I'm looking forward to going back, and hope Kirby will eventually join me.  I think he might have a hard time staying awake (ha ha!) but I think he would greatly benefit from an hour of complete silence, reflection and rest since he's go-go-go all the time, even when he's in a "resting state."  He never stops working, and he might even think about work the whole time in Meeting, but at least I'd have him still and quiet for an hour! 

Meat Smoking Master

Okay, okay...so I'm still far from being a "master," but for the rig I have I think I've pretty much nailed down this whole meat smoking thing.  My first two attempts were lessons in temperature control.  The first time was WAY too hot, the second time was WAY too cold (due to it being about 30 and windy outside).  I learned that outside weather conditions DO affect the smoker in a way they don't necessarily affect a standard grill.  Once I switched from regular charcoal to hardwood charcoal, a key element to smoking I later picked up, temperature control has been easy.

The next challenge was the amount of time it takes.  I finally resigned myself to the need to smoke overnight.  I haven't been good about getting up at night to tend to the smoker, but if you set it up right before bed and don't sleep more than eight hours, you usually have a decent temp in the morning and can kick it right back up again to finish the meat off.   It tends to get mostly done overnight, probably because the heat gets up higher for a little while since its not being tended.  But so long as the majority of the time is spent at the right temp it won't dry the meat out.

Of course, you need to master rubs and sauces as well.  I've always been able to make killer BBQ sauce.  It just kind of happened one day and I've tweaked and perfected it over time.  Last time I made BBQ sauce from scratch, but this time I started with a bottled sauce and made it better by simmering it with chipoltle peppers and blending it up.  Saved time and still ended up with a killer sauce.  Rubs are easy for me, too, because it is the same basic concept as a BBQ sauce, just a dry version.  I actually use a semi-wet rub that has some wet elements but is much more like a paste than a wet rub.  I threw it together the first time I smoked a pork butt and it worked so well I've stuck with it ever since.  There aren't any exact measurements, as with most things I make, I just eyeball the amounts.  The rub consists of:
Real Maple Syrup
Honey
Brown Sugar
Chipotle Powder
Cayenne Powder
Black Pepper
White Pepper
Cumin
Salt
Liquid Smoke
Worstershire Sauce
Vinegar

I try to let that sit on the meat for at least a couple hours, but overnight is best.  The sugars help make a nice crust on the outside of the meat, which assists in locking in moisture and keeping the meat juicy.

I like smoking meat for a variety of reasons.  One is that it just tastes so good.  It kicks girlling's ass all up and down the street.  I like it because it is not a precice cooking science, like baking, but there are techniques and protocols that give you the best result.  Each time you smoke you learn something new to try the next time.  I also like that it is a legnthy process that requires I stay home for long periods of time, but I can also do other things.  Its not like you have to man the smoker constantly for 12 hours.  With more practice, and eventually a better smoking rig, I will become a meat smoking master!

America's Next Top [Pinup] Model

I have been toying with the idea of boudoir photography for a while now, and the only reason I haven't done it yet is because I haven't been able to scrape together the necessary cash to do it right.  I'm not interested in half-assing it, I want a good photog with excellent Photoshop skills, and I have the one picked out but the price is still a little without my reach.

We also want some good shots of our cars with models, and as luck would have it, a local photographer contacted us about using one of the cars in a shoot this coming week.  In exchange he agreed to do some shots of me with the car as well.  I'm both excited and nervous.  I've had multiple people tell me I have the looks to do pinup photography but I'm also extremely shy when it comes to that type of thing and I don't think I take good pictures. 

I will have the benefit of professional hair and makeup, which makes me more comfortable with it in general.  We'll see how the shoot turns out, but if it goes well and the pictures rock, it is something I might consider doing on a regular basis.  I think it would be fun, and it would give me an outlet and a purpose still related to out business but completely outside it and all my own.

If the pictures don't suck, I'll post some here once I have them!

Book Review: Game Change

I saw this book in the store when it first came out and was going to wait for paperback, but then I got my Kindle, so I bumped it up the list because I really wanted to read it.  that was a good call.  I had read some of the reviews, which had not been very kind, but the one that caught my eye was from the L.A. Times calling it "political porn."  Perfect!  That's right up my alley!

I started reading it, and like the review predicted, could barely put it down.  It is an easy read, not written in a journalistic style as one might expect given the authors.  It is written in a very fiction-y way, almost like a novel.  If you didn't know that this stuff had actually happened you might think you were reading a fiction novel about a campaign.  It reads that easy, and absorbingly. 

All in all, it isn't a book for everyone.  You really need to be a political junkie to find any of it even remotely interesting.  Most of the general ideas and points made I could see happening during the actual campaign, but I wanted the behind-the-scenes details.  My recent party switch transpired during the 2008 Presidential election, due to the events I saw unfolding in the campaign, and I was curious to no end about how that actually played out in reality, beyond what I could see following the race less closely than usual for me.

It really kicked my dander up again about what happened in the Democratic Party.  I had just recently come to terms with all that happened and how I really felt about it, and laid most of my anger and resentment to rest and was becoming more comfortable in my new political identity.  Nothing in the book changed my mind on any of it, but it did give me more confidence in my decision and cleared up any lingering uncertainty that I may have reacted too harshly to the treatment of Clinton in the primaries.  If you are in any way a fan of Obama, this book might not be for you.  The authors don't take sides, and they do as good a job as any in keeping their personal feelings and political leanings out of the text, but if you think that Obama was sent from Heaven to solve all our problems and usher in a new, post-racial America...don't read this book.  It won't change your mind (mostly because if you truly believe that you are blindly ignorant of the facts anyway), it will just make you angry.  You'll still think Obama hung the moon and you'll be resentful that anyone could talk about The One like that.

The insight into the Republican ticket is less entertaining, less shocking, and really not all that great.  Either there wasn't anything to cover there or they just didn't do a very good job--focusing more on the soap opera that unfolded on the other side.  i wasn't reading the book for any insight in to the Republican ticket, anyway.  I know what happened there, and honestly, even though I voted for McCain and still like Palin, I could care less.  Ultimately in my heart I'm still a Hilary fan, and the book reminded me that I had a special name in 2008 that I had completely forgotten about--PUMA.  (Party unity my ass--female Democrats who left the party and/or voted for McCain after Clinton failed to win the nomination.)  Although the PUMA's turned out to be less of a force than originally predicted, I was one, and was damn proud of it at the time.

There is some interesting Edwards drama in there, too, but nothing that hasn't already been COMPLETELY played out by the national media already.  It does make me very ashamed, though, that he is the candidate I originally hitched my wagon to, and voted for in the Tennessee primary.  Most of all I'm blown away by my total inability to see through him at that point in time.  He was already a lunatic, but I missed that one by a mile!

So...read the book if you like politics, and are in the mood for some soft-core political porn.  Otherwise, skip it, it won't be your cup of tea. 

Basic Instinct

I don't have many skills.  I'm terrible at math and can't sing a lick.  Unless you are looking for comic relief, don't ask me to dance.  My social skills are the worst.  I am completely incapable of making small talk, don't do well in small or large social settings, and generally keep to myself at parties.  I don't make friends easily.  The root of that is likely the fact that I was an only child and learned to entertain myself at a young age, and never really had many friends in school because they were always pulling me out of regular classes for the "gifted program" so my main circle of friends were the other kids who got pulled with me.  As a rule, the so-called "smart kids" aren't always the most socially adept either, so even when I had friends, they were usually socially stunted in some way or another with me.  We were close, but we were odd. 

Despite my social deficiencies I tend to be able to read people almost immediately.  I just get "gut feelings" about them in the first few minutes of interaction, sometimes before they even say a word.  I don't always know why I feel the way I do, but occasionally I can point to specific things they said or did, or a tone they used.  The fact that I can't always verbalize what it is about someone that brings me to a certain conclusion about them means that often my gut reaction is discounted--particularly by Kirby who is very social, verbal and more socially forgiving than I am in general.  He can strike up a conversation with anyone, anywhere about almost anything and run with it, but he doesn't have a strong gut reaction to most people.  Sometimes he does, but not frequently. 

Some of that I'm sure has to do with gender.  Supposedly women have a more highly developed sense in that regard.  I used to try to rationalize mine away but over time I realized my gut was right about people more often than not and now I trust it almost 100% when it comes to meeting new people.  That doesn't always serve me well, but most of the time it does, particularly in business.  I honestly can't point to a single occasion in the last three years where my gut has been wrong about anyone.

The only problem arises when there is already some connection with the person I'm feeling out.  You see, this system fails me under a few specific circumstances.  One being when I'm concerned what the other person thinks about ME.  When I'm too focused on the image I'm projecting I can't read the other person at all.  I also developed this skill once I got out into the "real world" and was exposed to people of varying backgrounds, personalities, etc...  So, when it comes to people I've known for a long time I can't discern what my gut is really telling me about them because I already know them, they already know me, and at the time we met I was not concerned with reading them--I was concerend with them liking me.

I have a friend who will remain nameless, who I have known for going on 18 years now.  We were close for the first six years of that friendship, almost like sisters.  Then we started to go seperate ways and completely lost touch for about five years.  When we did get back in touch four years ago we were both going through difficult times in our personal lives and picked right back up where we left off, like being sisters, and supporting each other through the transitions in life and into real adulthood.  Problem was, she was making bad decisions.  I told her as much, but still supported her through all the ups and downs those bad decisions brought to bear.  I was careful not to judge or critisize, but I was honest in my opinions and assessments.

Over the last year or so our communication became more sporadic, and usually only took place when she was having another problem related to the consequences of her poor life choices.  In January she called with big life news that should be happy, but to me it wasn't really so plesant to hear.  I probably did not react the way she was expecting although I tried not to react negatively.  Several cancelled and rescheduled lunch dates later, six weeks after the initial call, she completely stood me up for a lunch date that she had just reconfirmed with me the afternoon before.  She didn't reply to my texts or e-mails immediately after that.  I didn't try and contact her for about another month.  Finally, just to make sure she was OK I sent an e-mail.  No reply.  I sent a text.  No reply.  I sent another text saying I would call the cops to come check on her at work if she didn't let me know she was OK, and I got a reply!  I'm fine, been busy, will call you tomorrow she replied.  No call.  No text.  No e-mail.  

Although I had claimed I was done after the no-call no-show lunch date, I proclaimed it again.  I really was done.  I don't have the time, or the desire, for "friendships" like this at this point in my life.  Mentally, though, I still wonder how she's doing and it is virtually impossible to just cut someone out of your life that cleanly after so long.  But I still hadn't heard from her, and I wasn't going to be the person to send off an unsolicited angry e-mail proclaiming "this is why I don't want to be your friend anymore."  Two weeks ago I got an invitation to a party in her honor, one that solicits gifts.  I was not shocked or surprised but I was dumbfounded.  Really?  You sent me an invitation to come give you presents, but you haven't called or e-mailed me in months and only replied to my text when I threatened to send the cops to your office?  

I RSVP'ed via e-mail to the host declining to attend.  I figured I might hear something from her at that point, but still nothing.  My gut tells me that mean she knows that she's done something wrong and doesn't have the balls to speak up and address it.  Maybe she's waiting for me to send that angry e-mail, since that would typically be in character for me.  But I refuse to do it.  I absolutely refuse to do it.  I know my gut is right about her, and about the situation and I won't let my head or heart overrule it this time.  And part of me wants to see how long this will go.  How long will she wait?  If it is forever, then that is how it will end...just a strange deteroration into nothingness.  

Where I don't know whether to trust my gut is what to do if she does contact me.  Do I continue with my plan of ending this friendship?  One that has benefitted me none, one that has been completely one-sided for the last ten or more years?  Do I express my feelings and give her a chance to change, knowing that she probably won't, then we have to go through this whole process again?  Do I lay into her right off the bat, or simply state my feelings and wait for her to ask why?

My gut has no answer to those questions.  I guess if the time actually comes, I'll have a strong gut feeling one way or another and I'll just have to go with that instinctual response when it happens. 

And Just Like That

The 2009-2010 NHL season comes to a close.  It will take a few days for it to sink in, and for my brain to catch up to what I just witnessed.  For now I will just say thank the Lord it wasn't the Penguins.  As sad as I am to see Marian Hossa now get his name inscribed on Lord Stanley's Cup, and as confused as I am at the Hockey Gods for even allowing that possibility, I am rejoicing inside...that for at least another 12 months I will be freed from seeing images of Sidney Crosby hoisting The Cup.  I will not have to hear "defending Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins."  I will not have to hear "the young captain who led his team to a Stanley Cup victory," and have them mean Crosby.  That phrase is now reserved for Jonathan Towes. 

I now retreat into the standard hockey hibernation mode, which begins first with moruning.  Mourning the loss of the team I was rooting for and the end of the season all at once, which is becoming pretty standard for me to have to deal with both at the same time.  My thoughts are with you Broad Street Bullies and the fans of Philly.  Goodnight.

A Constitutional Quandary Part 3

It has been a while since I posted in this series.  (The first two posts can be found in April)The last post discussed the checks on government power in the Constitution.  The second set of checks on government power was the Bill of Rights.  The original Bill of Rights is technically the first set of amendments to the Constitution, and even though there are now twenty seven amendments, only the first ten are called the "Bill of Rights." 

Some states, mainly Virginia and New York, were not fully satisfied with the Constitution in the form that it left the Constitutional Convention.  The delegates had been working long hours in a hot stuffy room for many months and were not really interested in continuing to do so.  But without some sort of additional guarantees of individual rights the Constitution would not have been ratified and they would have needed to hold another convention and start all over again.  It was promised that if the Constitution was ratified, the Bill of Rights would be drafted and ratified later.  So it was.

While James Madison gets the credit for drafting the Bill of Rights, and he certainly did do that, he borrowed heavily from fellow Virginian George Mason who authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776.  Many people today view the word "right" as implying some sort of benefit which is known as a "positive right."  However, at the time these documents were written the most commonly held connotation of the word "right" was what is termed a "negative right."  Positive rights do confer something, either tangible or intangible, to the right's bearer.  Negative rights, on the other hand, provide the right's bearer to be free from some sort of real or perceived interference.  Take for example the First Amendment which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It is most clearly seen in the language of this amendment how a negative right is supposed to work.  It clearly states that Congress cannot pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of one's religion, of which establishing a state religion would do.  It does not guarantee that government will provide a place to worship, funds for your church, or keep you from seeing anything religious if you are an atheist and are offended by religious insignia and displays.  It provides the same protections to the press, individual speech, assembly and petition of the government.  It does not provide for channels to exercise this right, nor does it imply that anything is given to the right's holder.  It only states that the government will not interfere in these areas.  Note also that it only applies to the government, and that private institutions may infringe on the right to free speech, which is a common misconception of the First Amendment.  An employer, for example, could ban employees from blogging about the company.  The freedom of speech, as it is called, is not absolute in any way, shape or form--even in public arenas--as has been demonstrated in some Supreme Court cases over the years, although limits have been few and reasonable (such as the "fire in a crowded theater" rule, as it is known). 

Or take for example the Second Amendment, which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We'll skip over the "militia" part as it is very hotly debated and not really relevant to the point I am trying to make specifically.  The Second Amendment prohibits the government from passing laws that prevent people from "keeping and bearing arms."  Now, what this means and how it relates to the pare about militias is relevant in the big picture, but again, to illustrate what a negative right is versus a positive right, all you have to see is the second half of the statement.  Simply put, you can own a gun and the government cannot prohibit that.  That is a negative right.  Spun to a positive right, the government would have to give you a gun if you wanted one, and I think most reasonable people would agree that is not even close to the intent of the amendment.  

The reason the distinction between positive and negative rights is so important is that because the modern connotation leans toward the positive but that is not what was intended by the Founders.  Remember, they were trying to LIMIT the power of the government, not enumerate a list of things that the people of the United States were guaranteed to have (other than freedom from government interference in these areas).  It was assumed that listing specific rights would leave open a great debate about all of the things that were not listed, and they were correct in that assumption.  It was agreed, still, that some listing of specific limits on government power was better than none, so we have the Bill of Rights.

It is at the margins, in those areas left open to debate because they were not enumerated, that most modern conflict arises.  Some debate over the "spirit of the law" or intent of the Framers takes place over the enumerated rights, as well, but nothing has been more crucial to the expansion of Federal power than what was NOT listed combined with modern interpretations of how a "right" should be truly defined.  

Up next...the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...

Hockey Thoughts: Stanley Cup Finals

Yeah, I know, we are potentially one game away from the end of the 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs and I'm just now writing a substantive post about the Finals.  Sorry. 

I just went back and reviewed my picks in the previous rounds because it feels like a million years ago already and I just wanted to make sure before I ran my mouth.  I did not really differentiate between the teams I thought would win and the teams I wanted to win for the semi-finals round, so I'll have to clarify that now. 

For the Quarterfinals round I went 2 for 4 in the Western Conference and 1 for 4 in the Eastern Conference with my actual picks, for a total of 3 out of 8, or 38%.  That's pretty bad.  As for the teams I wanted to win, I fared even worse.  I went 0 for 4 in the Western Conference and 2 for 4 in the East, or 2 of 8 total, a paltry 25%.  My two favs, and my pick to go all the way, were eliminated in the First Round.  Bummer.

In the Semi-Final Round I went 2 for 2 in the Eastern Conference in actual picks and in terms of who I wanted to win, since they were the same in both categories.  I also went 2 for 2 in picks for the Western, but only wanted one of them to win, so survived getting 1 of 2 in that category.  

For the Conference Finals I very decidely was wrong, and did not get who I wanted, in the West--picking San Jose, who got swept by Chicago.  As for who I wanted in the East, I was evenly split between the two teams wanting Montreal to go because they took out Pittsburgh, but also wanting Philly to go because they have some ex-Preds and hadn't beaten the Caps.  I thought Montreal would take the series, but they did not.  So, I was 0 for 1 in picks and somewhat neutral in what I wanted.  

Now we are to the Finals, and it should be pretty evident by the choices outlines above that I want Philly to win.  I also pick Philly over Chicago for the win.  After last night I'm not sure if I picked the winner (and who I pick usually loses anyway), but the series isn't over yet, and its not a done deal for the Hawks.  I'm still sticking with Philly.  

A special shout out to Partick and Parker, who I met this weekend in Knoxville at Cheryl's bar who are die-hard Hawks fans.  Two very cool dudes, and knowledgable on hockey, which is a rare find down South.  They both recently moved from Chicago, and I had a ball teasing them, talking hockey and "Wayne's World."  I even drew them some pictures on coasters demonstrating why Jonathan "Toes" is gay.  They did not like my illustrations, but they are fact.  There's not a whole lot I can do about it.  We also discussed Kane being gay, which did not bother them much and the NBC announcer bolstered my opinion last night when he declared that, "Timonen didn't see Kane coming on his backside."  I just love it when the announcers are unintentionally dirty. 

Why I Heart Shoes

I know its cliche for a woman to love shoes.  I have loved them since as long as I can remember, with Jellies being my first shoe obsession.  In middle school is was roper-style cowboy boots.  In high school is when it really took off, and my first "real" job was working at Off Broadway in Cool Springs.  I really, truly love shoes.  There's almost nothing else in the world that is both calming and exciting, and utterly pleasing, to me than to look at, try on and buy shoes.  There has to be something hard wired into most women that makes us like shoes.  I don't know what it could possibly be, in terms of evolution, but I just feel it in my gut that it isn't only a social construct either.

I started getting into really wild shoes in high school, mostly heels but many other styles.  I still have a collection of Adidas Shell Toe tennis shoes from high school.  Green with white stripes (still my fav), white with yellow, white with black, white with blue, and white with pink.  Out of the 72 pair I currently own, I'd say a good 25% have been with me since high school or the first couple years of college.  One reason I'm able to keep shoes for so long is that I do have so many that I don't have to wear any one pair that often.  Some of the basics get worn out and replaced, like flip flops, tennis shoes, black pumps, etc...  But on the whole, the sheer number of shoes I have enables me to preserve them all longer. 

The other reason my shoes are so well preserved is that at least half of them I'd qualify as "funky," in that they are only appropriate occasionally, and only go with a select few (or maybe even one) outfit.  But, of course, these are some of my favorites because I'm into the funky shoes more than normal, run of the mill shoes.  The reason is the main reason I'm into shoes generally--shoes make an outfit.  I truly believe this.  You can change the whole tenor and tone of an outfit by changing the shoes.  Shoes generally last longer than clothes, so by having lots of shoes its not necessary to have as many wordrobe options.

I also like shoes, and the funky ones, because to me they are works of art.  Just like fashion is an art form, of which shoes are a part, each one was designed with a vision and a purpose.  Unlike paintings which have to stay in one place, or music that you can't listen to all the time, shoes are art you can take with you and admire constantly.  Shoes reflect your attitude at the moment and project an important message about who you are--that you care enough to have on nice shoes, that are well taken care of, and that you pay attention to the details.  They are at once both an item of clothing AND an accessory.

In addition to all that, simply put, I hate feet.  Feet are gross and I don't like looking at them.  Mine, or anyone else's.  Shoes cover feet, so just in principal I like the idea.  And if you are covering something as unsightly as feet, why not cover them with something beautiful that makes the feet attractive, rather than disgusting?

I just got my first pair of Manolo Blahniks today.  They were my birthday gift from Kirby.  Some people may be cynical about that, thinking I'm a label whore or just want to be like Carrie Bradshaw.  I'll admit that I was first exposed to Manolos because of "Sex and the City," but the same can be said for most of high fashion.  Not many women of my generation can claim otherwise, either.  But to a shoe lover--no, admirer--like myself owning a pair of Manolos is like owning a Picasso is to an art lover.  Or an Aston Martin to a car lover.  Just looking at and holding them you can see the quality is better than even the most expensive run-of-the-mill department store shoe.  They are absolutely stunning and crafted to perfection.  They fit like a glove and are comfortable despite having a heel.  I love shoes, but even the most beautiful pair doesn't get purchased by me unless they are comfortable.  I've been down that road and its not worth it.

All that said, I love shoes.  And I love my Manolos.  These will not be my last pair of high end footwear, but just like anything else in life, you always remember your first! 

Product Review: Amazon Kindle

Since the Washington Capitals did not make it past the First Round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, let alone to the Finals, I got a Kindle for my birthday.

I have been interested in them since they came out, and wanted one for the novelty of it, even though when they first hit the market I wasn't reading at all.  Recently I began reading again, and at quite a pace, so I figured it was time to buck up and get one.  I wasn't keen on the idea of not having a physical book but for the first time in my life I'm reading multiple books at once.  I used to get one book, read it cover to cover, then get another.  I never even had two books to be read in my posession at any one time.  Now, keeping up with more than one book let alone carrying them around has become a hassle and I was looking forward to having them all in one compact device.

I had not even seen a Kindle in person until I took mine out of the box Saturday night and I must say I was astounded by how small, thin and light it was.  On Sunday I downloaded one of the books I was already reading but had misplaced.  Today I downloaded ones on my "wait list."  The other hard copy books I'm reading are anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 finished, so I figured I could just finish them in their primative form.

I'm still not sure I am OK with not having a physical book.  Overall its a really cool device, and I like the ease and speed of buying books and the fact that you can basically get them anywhere, anytime.  I already discovered that one book (actually three, part of one series) is not available for Kindle.  Its not high up on my list anyway, so its not a big deal.  I've rounded up some hard copy books to take and sell to pay for my first Kindle purchases.  I still worry that the majority of the books I may want to read won't be available for the Kindle, but I haven't done any extensive browsing in that regard.  So far, I'll give the purchasing of books an A-.

It is super easy to use with basically no learning curve.  I'll give it an A for ease of use.  I'm still adapting to the pages "turning" and I'm trying to get used to going ahead and reading the last few words on the "page" before hitting the button to turn the page since there is transition time and a sort of wierd thing that the screen does when a page "turns."  I'll give it a B in that area.  I also like that it has a progress bar letting you know how far you are into a book, since I get more motivated as I get farther into a book and I was wondering how the Kindle would compensate for not being able to visually see how much book is left.  A+ for that idea, for sure.

Used the text to speech function on the way home from work today.  If you don't have headphones or something to plug it into the volume is really low.  The text to speech feature does sound like your answering maching reading a book to you, though, and the pauses and adaptation of punctuation is WAY off.  Pronunciation is also WAY off.  You really have to concentrate to know what it is "saying," so this function still needs quite a bit of work.  Def a D in this area.

Even though I've only had it a few days and have yet to do too much reading on it, I'll give the device overall a B.  It has met my expectations in most areas, and in all others exceeded them.  Certainly a great device for anyone who likes to read, and I'm sure the majority of eReaders have similar functions and pros and cons.  I did alot of research before I decided on the Kindle over the Nook or Sony versions, and there doesn't seem to be any really important distinctions between the units overall.